Senate
22 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 2627

PETITIONS

Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 486 citizens of Australia:

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

Employees and Self-Employed Contributions to approved Superannuation Fund. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should approve that:

Contributions paid each year to Superannuation Funds should be removed from the Rebate System and made a separate deduction from Assessable Income.

b ) The amount allowed as a deduction to be at least that required to provide a retirement benefit of $ 155,400.

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

Petition received and read.

Social Security Benefits

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 58 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

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

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

-On behalf of Senator Cavanagh, I present the following petition from 14 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

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

Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

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

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

Employees and Self-Employed Contributions to approved Superannuation Fund.

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Carrick, Young and Peter Baume.

Petitions received.

Social Security Benefits

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

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

  1. 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 Harradine and Martin.

Petitions received.

Life Assurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

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

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1 970 to over 1 0 per cent by 1 990 and about 1 6 per cent by the year 2020.

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

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

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

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

  1. Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to superannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.
  2. Allow as such deduction amounts necessary to provide the individual with a reasonable retirement benefit as defined from time to lime by the Commissioner of Taxation.
  3. Remove Life insurance premiums paid from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income also.
  4. Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 percent of Life Insurance premiums up to a limit of $2, 500.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Durack and Martin.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Sheil, Martin, Melzer and Mason.

Petitions received.

Metric Systems

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in d uty bound will ever pray. by Senator Martin.

Petition received.

page 2628

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Notice of Motion

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 2628

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Notice of Motion

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

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

That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 1 9 August 1 980, at 3 p.m., or such other day and hour as may be fixed by the President, or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Chairman of Committees, and that the day and hour of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator.

page 2628

ADMINISTRATION OF THE PARLIAMENT

Notice of Motion

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

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

  1. 1 ) That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon Parliament’s control of its own appropriations and staffing, and related matters.
  2. That, unless otherwise ordered, the Committee consist of six senators, three being members of the Government to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and three being senators who are not members of the Government; two to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one to be nominated by the Australian Democrats.
  3. 3 ) That the quorum of the Committee be three.
  4. That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the Senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
  5. That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.
  6. That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote.
  7. That the Committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, and to meet notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives.
  8. That the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it; and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as be determined by the Committee.
  9. The Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources with the approval of the President.
  10. 10) That the Committee present a final report as soon as possible.
  11. That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Committee has completed its report, the Committee may send its report to the President of the Senate, or, if the President be not available, to the Deputy-President, who is authorised to give directions for its printing and circulation, and in such event, the President or Deputy-President shall lay the report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate.
  12. That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

page 2629

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND COMMERCE

Notice of Motion

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

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

That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce: The present state and prospects of the Australian export coal industry with particular reference to its contribution to the Australian economy.

page 2629

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2629

QUESTION

PETROL TAX: SHARING WITH STATES

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does the Government propose to allow the States to receive a share of the revenue which the Government is receiving from the petrol tax?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The present excise arrangements stand as they are with regard to the Commonwealth. The off-shore legislation, if that is what Senator Wriedt referred to, relates to royalties. The arrangement on royalties will be the same after the introduction of this legislation as before.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask a supplementary question. I was not referring to the off-shore legislation; I was referring to the fact that the Government is receiving revenue of around $3,000m this financial year from the petrol tax. As I understand it, at this stage the States do not receive any of that under any tax sharing arrangements. Is it the Government’s intention to continue to deny to the States any proportion of that revenue in the future?

Senator CARRICK:

-The tax sharing arrangements with the States under federalism are clearly defined and are clearly understood, and the Senate knows that well. There is no change to that at all. There is no suggestion that there should be a formula applied to any form of Commonwealth revenue other than is now known. I have not heard it suggested that the resources rent tax which the Australian Labor Party proposes to impose if it were in government and which would yield more, on its say so, than the excise duty would be shared with anyone other than a Labor government.

page 2629

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT ACT

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General and I refer to previous questions addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education dealing with the preparation of a statute by the Australian National University Council to put into effect the Australian National University Amendment Act passed by the Parliament last November. Has the Attorney-General now had a chance to examine the statute agreed to by the ANU Council on 9 May? Can he say whether it accords with the letter and the spirit of the Act passed by the Parliament and the views expressed by the Government as to its intentions?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-Senator Carrick, I think, in answer to a previous question from Senator Knight, indicated that the Department of Education is seeking advice from my Department as to whether the draft statute is acceptable in terms of the requirements of the legislation. I have to inform Senator Knight and the Senate that advice was given by my Department on 2 1 May to the Department of Education. That advice was that the statute made by the Council at its meeting on 9 May is acceptable in terms of the legislation and is legally satisfactory.

page 2630

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL: INQUIRY INTO CHANNEL 0

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-I refer the AttorneyGeneral to correspondence regarding the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal inquiry into Channel 0 in Melbourne, which he has made available to honourable senators, and, particularly, to a letter from Sir Reginald Ansett dated 5 December complaining that there had been a breach of the law and asking the AttorneyGeneral to take action in respect of that matter but on which, I think it is fair to say, no action was taken. Secondly, I refer him to a letter from Mr Graham Ihlein dated 14 December last year asking for the Attorney-General ‘s consent for a prosecution against News Ltd and Cruden Investments Pty Ltd for the same breaches as were alleged by Sir Reginald Ansett. I ask the Minister whether in fact he advised Mr Ihlein, a citizen who made a complaint of that nature, to obtain an opinion from experienced counsel which would verify the nature of his complaint? If so, why did the Attorney-General make that request of Mr Ihlein and not make a similar request of Sir Reginald Ansett, who had made exactly the same complaint?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The reply to Mr Ihlein was made by the Crown Solicitor in the form in which it is normal to reply to citizens who inquire in that way of the Attorney-General. It is standard practice in the Department to reply in that way. As far as the letter from Sir Reginald Ansett is concerned, that was a letter to me which I referred to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. As I have said several times here, in my view the matter was primarily for the attention of that Minister.

Senator BUTTON:

– I ask a supplementary question. The substance of the question I asked was why two citizens who make the same complaint are treated in a different manner by the Attorney-General?

Senator DURACK:

– I have answered the question. I have nothing more to add.

page 2630

QUESTION

REMEDIAL EDUCATION

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and draw his attention to a national survey relating to conditions in Australian schools, released on 1 9 May 1 980 by the Australian Teachers Federation. Will the Minister comment on this survey and in particular on its claim that there are approximately 320,000 students in Australian schools who need extra help but are not receiving it? Is the Government concerned about the large number of students who are presently in need of extra remedial assistance? Assuming this to be so, I ask the Minister what consideration has been given by the Government or government agencies to ways of ensuring that all students are given the opportunity and encouragement to strive for and to attain recognised levels of education? Will increased funding be made available to the States for the employment of more remedial and career teachers as a means of alleviating this problem?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I have not seen the national survey to which Senator Missen referred; I saw an item in a newspaper. One would need to obtain the details to comprehend fully. Senator Missen will recall that the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training drew attention to some significant defects in basic skills shown by a survey of 10-year-olds and 14-year-olds. In my previous capacity as Minister for Education I mentioned that there was evidence of a number of young people lacking motivation or attitudinal response in the learning process, and that these problems needed to be identified as early as possible and modified, if possible. I cannot put a figure on the situation. I would be surprised if it is as high as the Federation suggests.

Last year, in conjunction with the States the Government brought in a program of transition from school to work. The aim of that program is to ask the States to invite the schools to identify students at risk as early as possible; to try to isolate their problems; to see whether they need special remedial attention or simply recognition that they lack motivation or feel that no one is concerned about them; to endeavour throughout their primary and high school careers to bring them into the normal path of learning so that their transition from school to work should be the normal one; and failing that, to provide whatever means necessary to help them. The transition from school to work program involves significant amounts of money, which will increase over the years, and I believe that it is developing well. I believe it is one of the most significant educational processes. It is a sad fact that there should be within the community any significant percentage of young people who believe that no one is concerned about them and who believe that school is not for them. It is as much for the family and society as it is for the school but that does not diminish the importance of the school.

page 2631

QUESTION

ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LTD

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is to the Attorney-General and follows the question asked earlier today by Senator Button. I refer again to the letter from Sir Reginald Ansett to the Attorney on 5 December concerning alleged contraventions of the Broadcasting and Television Act. In the reply Mr Staley wrote to Sir Reginald on 26 March, despite the seriousness of the matters raised by Sir Reginald Ansett and despite the fact that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal had written to the Minister’s Department six weeks earlier on 20 February setting out the reasons why it did not consider it necessary to take any action, the Minister gave no explanation as to why the Government is not prepared to proceed under the provisions of the Act. I ask the Minister: Did that happen because the Government deliberately wanted to snub Sir Reginald Ansett and to make him feel that he no longer has any respect in the eyes of the Australian Government? Was it also because Sir Reginald was, in fact, challenging the activities of the Murdoch group? Was it a quiet message to Sir Reginald as to which side the Government is on now?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The letter about which Senator Wriedt asks me was a letter from Mr Staley, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, to Sir Reginald Ansett dated 26 March. I suppose I should really suggest that the question should be addressed to Mr Staley as he is the author of the letter. However, I think I should say that the Government certainly has no intention or desire whatever to snub Sir Reginald Ansett or to indicate that it lacks respect for him.

Senator WRIEDT:

- Mr President, in view of the Minister’s answer, I ask a supplementary question. Would he, as Attorney-General, regard that reply to Sir Reginald by the Minister acting for the Government as a sufficient reply, in view of the seriousness of the matters that were originally raised by Sir Reginald in his letter of 5 December? Is that his standard of an adequate reply to the original letter?

Senator DURACK:

– The answer is yes.

page 2631

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN IMAGE ABROAD

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs been drawn to an article appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald of Monday, 19 May, by Mr Harriott which condemns the fact that our national image abroad is still being projected as one of blatant larrikinism officially endorsed by the Commonwealth Government? Has there been any discussion on the merits of this article? Is it the aim and objective of the Government to portray this larrikin image overseas?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I did not see the ankle and therefore I cannot comment. I will seek out the article. I will refer the question to my colleague in another place and seek his study and comment.

page 2631

QUESTION

SOVIET UNION: AUSTRALIAN POLICY

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate say why the Government is now prepared to allow grain exporters to sell 25 per cent of the 1980-8 1 crop to the Soviet Union? Can we now take it that the Government is prepared to send one quarter of the Australian Olympic team to Moscow or is the Government still determined that the youth of Australia should be the only ones to shoulder the burden of the Government’s policies?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Government is pursuing precisely the line in terms of exports of food and material to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that it has stated before. The understanding in terms of food is that only the existing contracts and not any additional ones will be dealt with.

Senator Walsh:

– That is an additional one, drongo.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Withdraw that immediately.

Senator Walsh:

– I withdraw it but really, Mr President, when the Leader of the Government doesn’t know that this is a new contract, it is a bit over the fence.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Withdraw without qualification.

Senator Walsh:

– I withdraw.

Senator CARRICK:

– Since there is a seeking of detailed information, I will give the briefing and with the forbearance of the Senate, a slightly longer answer. It is public knowledge that the Minister for Primary Industry met grain exporting representatives after they had had a meeting in Canberra on 9 May. As a result of that meeting, the Minister undertook to go to the Government and seek clarification as to whether exporters who normally enter into forward contracts at this time of the year for the next crop could in fact do so now as an interim measure for a proportion of that crop. The Government decided that, as Hive meeting of grain exporting nations was to be held in Brussels between 19 and 21 May and as the Australian delegation would subsequently have to report back to the

Government and the Government would then have to consider its position, as an interim measure those exporters who traditionally contract at this time of the year could contract up to 25 per cent of their total open destination shipments in 1979-80 prior to the Government finally determining its position for next year’s crop.

All of the amount up to 25 per cent contracted at this time is to be counted against total sales to the Soviet Union. Exporters must individually provide evidence to the Government that they normally enter into such forward contracts at this time of the year. That was the point I made that brought the expletive. I repeat, exporters must individually provide evidence to the Government that they normally enter into such forward contracts at this time of the year. In other words, up to 25 per cent of an exporting body’s total shipments to Russia in the 1979-80 financial year can be contracted for now if that exporting body can provide evidence that this is a traditional time of entering into such forward contracts.

In many cases it is likely to be well below 25 per cent that can actually be contracted for the present time. For example, if in 1 979-80 a board shipped a total of 400,000 tonnes of grain to Russia, it could seek approval to enter into forward contracts up to 100,000 tonnes now; but, if the board can only produce evidence that last year it sold 50,000 tonnes to the Soviet Union at this time of the year, that is the maximum amount for which it could now expect approval under the current interim measure. This is totally consistent with the Government’s policy on grain sales to the Soviet Union. Along with other Western nations, Australia, as part of its measured response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, has given an undertaking not to make up any of the shortfall of 17 million tonnes of grain that the United States of America has withheld from the Soviet market. That is the undertaking that we gave to the United States and that remains the undertaking. We have never said that we would not allow normal sales to continue.

As to the second point, it cannot escape Senator Sibraa that a very significant number of the nations of the world now share the viewpoint of the Australian Government that there should be a boycott.

Senator McLaren:

– They do not.

Senator CARRICK:

– In response to that interjection, I draw attention to the list of nations incorporated in Tuesday’s Hansard, which shows that. I can understand the embarrassment of the

Australian Labor Party, which first of all recognised through its leader the significance to the world of an effective boycott and which has tried ever since to stop the development of a significant boycott. To know what is right and to do what is wrong is far worse than simply to be misguided.

Senator SIBRAA:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Is the reason that no public announcement has been made about this matter the fact that the Australian Olympic Federation is to make its decision tomorrow on whether a team goes to Moscow?

Senator CARRICK:

– This again is an attempt to try to influence the Olympic team to avoid the boycott. This again is a part of the tactics of the Australian Labor Party. I repeat that the Labor Party said, through its leader, that an effective boycott would be a significant aspect in world diplomacy to stop wars, but ever since it said that it has tried to destroy an effective boycott. What Senator Sibraa has said is not the case. The Government was following its normal policy and therefore what it has done is not exceptional in any way.

page 2632

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE FUNDS

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

-My question, to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, is prompted by the failure of a Druids Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund which has caused individual contributors who have incurred hospital debts to private hospitals the severest loss suffered by contributors as the result of any fund failure in Australia. Have contributors to failed medical and hospital benefits funds any claim against the Government where they have suffered financial loss in circumstances where departmental officials and others have deliberately refused, for spurious reasons, to act in accordance with their powers and responsibilities, to keep a Minister informed and to carry out procedures that would have saved these contributors from severe financial loss?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

I will refer the question to the Minister for Health to seek a response for Senator Watson.

page 2632

QUESTION

SOVIET UNION: AUSTRALIAN POLICY

Senator WRIEDT:

-My question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate refers to the answer he gave to Senator Sibraa. He said that the basis on which the Government was prepared to allow new shipments, new contracts, of wheat to Soviet buyers was on the principle of the amounts forwarded and sold to the. Soviet Union under previous contracts. He claims that that policy apparently is in line with the undertaking given to the United States. Will the Government consider using exactly the same principle in respect of the athletes? As a contingent of so many athletes were sent to the last Olympic Games will the Government apply the same standard in this case and send the same number of athletes as attended the last Olympic Games?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I would really expect better quality from the Leader of the Opposition. What we are talking about- the Australian community knows even if the Labor Party does not- is that Russia has invaded Afghanistan. The United Nations- that is 105 nations- believes the situation to be a very grave threat to world peace and a potential for world war as such. The Middle East nations believe that there is a threat of invasion of the Middle East. The Australian Government in common now with a significant number of other governments, believes that a boycott of the Olympic Games will get a message to the Russian people in a way that no other procedure can. Nothing else will get through the government block of the Kremlin.

The louder the cry of the Labor Party the more it is now out of step with the growing thinking of nations. It is interesting to know that public opinion polls today show a significant majority of the Australian people believe in a boycott of the Olympic Games. I repeat, in regard to trade with Russia, that the Australian Government is pursuing, as is America and other countries, the terms of the Co-ordinating Committee on Exports of Technology to Communist Countries agreement, and that is the denial of strategic materials to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Mr President I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the survey to which the Minister refers, can he tell us whether a majority of Australians regard the Prime Minister as a hypocrite for continuing to send his wool to the Soviet Union.

Senator CARRICK:

– The subject matter of that question does not come within my ministerial responsibility but I am happy to answer it. Along with the result of the public opinion poll that emerged on the Olympic boycott, another poll showed that the Australian people are increasing their support for the Prime Minister as the national leader. He is regarded above Mr Hayden as a national leader. The Australian people believe that the policies he is pursuing and the leadership he is showing are worthy of their support.

page 2633

QUESTION

RAIL STRIKE: TRANSPORT OF CATTLE

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. A strike by Australian National Railways employees has had the effect of stopping trains from South Australia to the Northern Territory and vice versa. This has brought the movement of stock by rail from the Northern Territory to southern markets to a standstill. In view of the necessity for continuity of movement of this stock, will the Minister for Transport be prepared to confer with his State and Territory counterparts to give special permission for road trains carrying stock to market to operate in the Northern Territory-South Australian area without the restrictions of normal road load limits?

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

– I think all honourable senators would understand the difficulties that are occasioned to producers by strikes of the sort which has been mentioned by Senator Kilgariff. I will ask the Minister for Transport to look at the request which has been made by Senator Kilgariff with regard to easing the position of cattle producers. I will ask him to see what can be done to alleviate the position.

page 2633

QUESTION

REDUCTION IN REAL INCOMES

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to statistics recently released by the Treasury which show that in the 12 months ended March 1980 the consumer price index increased by 10.5 per cent and the minimum weekly award wage for males increased by 8.9 per cent? Do these statistics reveal a lowering in real income for Australia ‘s low income earners?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I think that the figures that Senator Colston stated are correct but if we consider the trend over the years and the evidence before the Australian people, they do not reveal what he said they revealed. The inflation rate figure reveals that Australia, first of all, has managed to bring down inflation in the past four years from 1 8 per cent, which was almost double the present figure. Today our inflation rate is low by comparison with the average inflation rate for the rest of the world. This allows Australia to trade in the world in a better fashion than it has been able to do in eight or ten years to overcome the disabilities it had under a previous regime when it was costed out of world markets. When looking to the living standards of Australians, the first thing to look to is the ability of Australia to trade and sell its goods so that the living standards can be established. The figures are encouraging.

page 2634

QUESTION

WHALING

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware that the Government of Canada decided about six years ago to give up commercial whaling but during the period since it has kept its whale quotas? Is he aware that because of the recovery of the whale population in Canadian waters, in particular the population of the grey whale, the Canadians are now considering the re-establishment of commercial whaling operations in Canada? Will the Minister ask the Australian Government to make representations on a government to government level to the Government of Canada seeking to dissuade it from any moves it might be considering to re-enter the commercial whaling trade.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The viewpoint of the Commonwealth Government is well known. It hopes that the nations of the world will cease whaling and therefore allow the whales to breed and to re-establish the normal ecological balance in the marine world. We will pursue that aim, and we will pursue our good offices with other nations to bring it about. I believe that I have seen evidence pointing to the Canadian situation as Senator Puplick has described it, although I have no detailed knowledge of it now. I will bring Senator Puplick ‘s suggestion to the attention of the Minister concerned and ask him to study it and comment upon it.

page 2634

QUESTION

COMMITTEE REPORTS: GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSES

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– 1 refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the statement made by the Prime Minister on 25 May 1978 referring to committee reports, in which he said:

Henceforth, within six months of the tabling of a committee report, the responsible Minister will make a statement in the Parliament outlining the action the Government proposes to take in relation to the report.

I remind the Minister that the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Human Rights in the Soviet Union was tabled in the Parliament on 8 November 1979, which is now more than six months ago. Can the Minister let the Senate know why it is that a statement in accordance with the Prime Minister’s undertaking has not been made? Is it because the Government does not feel that this is a matter of sufficient importance to warrant its attention and, if that is so, how does it reconcile that with the attitudes it has taken on other matters concerning the Soviet Union? Does the Government propose to bring down a response before Parliament rises at the end of this week? If not, when does it intend to bring down a response?

Does not the Minister agree that this is a very casual attitude to a matter which I understood he regarded as being of some importance?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It is true that in May 1978 the Prime Minister established a principle which was a major innovation in this Parliament, that is, to set as a goal the bringing into Parliament of a Government response to reports. That had not been done previously. It is an innovation which, if achieved, will accomplish a great deal. It is equally true that there is some delay in the response to that report. Only a week ago I looked at that report and the progress being made on the response in an endeavour to see whether it could be brought in during this session. We cannot do that, but I will undertake that early in the Budget session it will be brought in. It is no casual attitude at all. Senator Wheeldon cannot have escaped knowledge of the sheer volume of work that has been before the Senate; that has been a matter of some comment by his colleagues and himself. As to the question of human rights, Senator Wheeldon is correct in saying that I have the gravest concern, but that concern is shared by the whole of the Government. I acknowledge his concern. I will endeavour to get a response for the Senate as soon as possible.

page 2634

QUESTION

REMEDIAL EDUCATION

Senator NEAL:
VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and makes further reference to a matter raised in an earlier question today relating to a recent national survey by the Australian Teachers Federation on conditions in Australian schools. I ask the Minister whether he can comment on two serious and specific problems that the survey reveals: Firstly, the situation of careers counselling, which has been identified as a serious problem in schools; and secondly, the position of the 320,000 students who need extra help, and specifically the 41 ,000 students needing intensive English language assistance.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I have mentioned the question of the transition from school to work, which overlays the whole matter. In association with the transition program, the Commonwealth is seeking to review with the States the existing vocational guidance services to see how they can be improved and rationalised. Following discussions between the Minister for Education and the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs wrote recently to State Ministers for education and labour seeking their agreement to commence the review. The review is expected to cover both out of school services and those provided in school, and to consider the interaction between the two. The Commonwealth hopes that the review will lead to the rationalisation and improvement of existing services, which will allow more of the Commonwealth’s resources to be directed to them. I can say only that it is a natural consequence of the situation I described in answer to an earlier question that one needs to have counselling and guidance. But fundamentally two things emerge throughout the education system. One is that every teacher ought to be trained as a remedial teacher so that there is the earliest diagnosis of the need for remedial work. That is absolutely fundamental. Secondly, the earlier the diagnosis the better. If I may add a third point, teachers themselves have a fundamental job in counselling. One of the things that the Government is doing is looking to see how teachers themselves could be trained better in counselling.

The second part of Senator Neal ‘s question relates particularly to ethnic problems in English as a second language. He will be aware of the Galbally report. He will be aware of the massive reforms that have flowed from it. He will be aware, I think, of the considerable extra flow of money to the States and to the schools in this regard, and that money is being directed towards that purpose. It is a problem but the Government is attacking it with vigour.

page 2635

QUESTION

TRADING RELATIONS WITH THE SOVIET UNION AND IRAN

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate refers to Australia’s trading relations with the Soviet Union and with Iran. I ask: How is it that the Government, within the space of a few days, has taken such an inconsistent attitude in respect of trading relations with the Soviet Union and Iran although Iran is a country which may be more acceptable in the viewpoint of that part of the Australian community which is critical of the Soviet Union? The Government has in fact applied stronger sanctions against Iran than it has against the Soviet Union, and within the space of a few days. I ask the Minister: Does this not demonstrate a lack of an independent Australian Government policy? Should not the Government be pursuing friendly actions with a power like Iran so as to cement better relations instead of doing the opposite in respect of both those countries?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I respect the underlying sentiments that Senator Bishop puts- that every government should pursue as far as possible a goal of peace with dignity and peaceful relations with dignity with other countries. The idea of polarising into enmity is repugnant to us and certainly to any other government. Let me simply say that. Let me equally say that I am well aware that Iran in common with the other Islamic nations shares our mutual fear of the aggressive thrust of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and is indeed in very considerable dread of the Afghanistan situation, particularly through Baluchistan, as being a threat to Iran, to Saudi Arabia and to others. I want to acknowledge common ground entirely on that because I respect that situation. I am asked therefore why the particular actions are being taken. Yesterday I pointed out that the Security Council itself formulated for Iran a series of actions which the wisdom of the great bulk of the world leaders believed would best serve to bring about a solution, and it is not just Australia which is doing that; it is a community of nations which is doing that. That resolution, which as Senator Bishop knows would have succeeded except for the Russian veto, was one which in fact laid down principles of trade sanctions which Australia is now pursuing. It is believed that a direct message can be got to the Iranian people by this method. I would have to say along with Senator Bishop that I deplore the need for the use of sanctions in any of these matters.

Senator Wriedt:

– You don’t know what you are saying- honestly.

Senator CARRICK:

-Well -

Senator Wriedt:

– You don’t know the implications of what you are saying.

Senator CARRICK:

– The mumblings from across the floor have been the most inconsistent because the Labor Party is entirely ambivalent on everything relating to Iran, to Afghanistan and to the USSR. But the situation is that as to Iran we are talking in terms of the generally accepted tactics that other countries- countries which I think the Opposition would respect- are using. With regard to the USSR, it is quite clear that a similar kind of sanction itself would have no effect at all upon it. It would have no effect at all because its capacity to supply from other regions and to compensate is enormous. The Soviet Union’s capacity to disguise that by means of keeping it away from its people is also enormous. The one thing on which the Soviet Union is utterly vulnerable is the fact that there is an opportunity at this moment to get a unique message across to the Russian people- the kind of message that Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov have been courageously trying for years to get across to them. That would come through in the Olympic boycott. In fact, the policies are designed by, significantly, a majority of nations which believe that these policies are both rational and potentially the most successful.

Senator BISHOP:

-I ask a supplementary question. Why is Australia’s policy on sanctions against Iran tougher than those of friendly Western powers, such as the European Economic Community, including the United Kingdom? Why are we taking a tougher stand than is being taken by other countries towards people who are generally friendly towards Australia?

Senator CARRICK:

– I was asked earlier by Senator Bishop why we do not take an independent view. Our independent view was that the United Nations resolution was a resolution worth supporting and we believed that it was a pretty wholesome one to support. 1 thought that the Australian Labor Party believed in supporting United Nations actions. We took that independent view and we supported the sanctions.

page 2636

QUESTION

ETHANOL PRODUCTION: SUGAR BEET

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy. Having passed the legislation relative to the experimental production of ethanol, can the Minister seek the support of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Garland, to secure the issue of licences as quickly as possible to enable those successful applicants involved in sugar beet growing to utilise their crops, which will be reaching maturity over the next four to six weeks? Does the Minister see any difficulties in having these licences available to coincide with the maturity of the crop? Will he particularly press the point with Mr Garland?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I completely understand Senator Archer’s interest, and Tasmania’s interest, in the use of sugar beet as distinct from other biomass in the production of ethanol. I will certainly contact my colleague in another place and seek to expedite the licences. Some difficulties are involved as he will know. Some very great dangers are involved in the production of power alcohol, which has considerable inherent health dangers if wrongly used. I have no doubt that the Department is trying to take these matters into account in framing its regulations. I think there is common sense in trying to get some experimental licences so that some of the sugar beet crop, along with other biomass, can be used in experimentation. The use of ethanol as a supplement, as an extender, to petrol in this country will be of value. It will not be a major step but it will be a happy extra or supplementary step in an emerging conservation and development program on energy.

page 2636

QUESTION

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION ACT: BREACHES

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Attorney-General and follows those asked earlier by Senator Button and Senator Wriedt on the matter of the failure of the Government to institute proceedings for apparent breaches by the Murdoch companies of the Broadcasting and Television Act. Noting that in his letter of 2 1 January 1980 the Attorney-General passes the buck to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, that in his letter of 26 March 1980 the Minister for Post and Telecommunications passes the buck to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and that in its letter of 20 February 1980 the Broadcasting Tribunal passes the buck back to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, 1 ask: Where does the buck stop?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Either Senator Evans has not carefully studied the answers or he has not understood them. Lately we have experienced a lack of understanding of legal matters by the lawyers of the Opposition. We debated that subject last night. It is a very good question as to who has the ultimate responsibility in these matters, but that is not the point here. The point here is that the Attorney-General is not an investigator. I do not have a great department of investigations, and my Department does not operate like the United States Attorney-General ‘s Justice Department, which I suppose Senator Evans would like us to adopt. The matter of investigations in this country is one which is along the more traditional British lines. The Ministers who administer Acts are the ones who, in the first place, really should make investigations.

The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has embarked upon consideration of these matters under the powers that it has. The fact that it may have been mistaken in the way it approached the matter is no responsibility of mine or of the Minister. Now the matter has been corrected and investigations will proceed. While that was going on I felt that no decision should be made. The question about launching prosecutions is another problem. Who is the appropriate person to do that? Senator Evans would know that the Attorney-General himself does not launch immediate informations and prosecutions in this country and that the Attorney-General’s role in this country normally arises in regard to the question of indictments. That is where the Attorney comes into the prosecution process. He may be involved at an earlier stage in providing advice or legal assistance. This is not a simple question to answer. The fact of the matter is that some of the problems posed by the question, in my opinion, are ones that have not yet arisen for determination in this case for the reasons I have already given.

Senator EVANS:

- Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Who is the AttorneyGeneral saying has the final responsibility in this Government for determining whether proceedings should be initiated for breaches of the Broadcasting and Television Act?

Senator DURACK:

– The question is really hypothetical. If one is talking about it academically -

Senator Ryan:

– No.

Senator DURACK:

-A1I right, if honourable senators are not talking about it academically, it is hypothetical. In my opinion that question has not yet come for determination, and I have given the reasons why it has not.

page 2637

QUESTION

PROVISION OF TELEVISION SERVICES TO EYRE PENINSULA

Senator JESSOP:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer to the vexed question of the provision of television extension services to Eyre Peninsula, a subject which has been of continuing annoyance for far too long to people living in those areas. Is it a fact that the Department has ordered equipment from overseas for the installations contemplated in a program announced by the Minister some time ago? Is the planning related to the capital works associated with these stations proceeding satisfactorily? Is Telecom Australia keeping up with the program in order to comply with the Minister’s undertaking that these installations will be operational by early 1981?

Senator McLaren:

– You are not putting out another bodgie Press statement like you did in 1977, are you?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator McLaren, cease interjecting.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

- Senator Jessop, as is well known to all honourable senators, and as is apparently very irritating to Senator McLaren, has taken a continuous interest in this matter and has raised the matter in the Senate on a number of occasions. He has made representations not only in the Senate but also to the Minister about the need to improve television services for Eyre Peninsula. I think it is a pity that he should not be applauded by his fellow South Australians for his efforts on behalf of Eyre Peninsula instead of being subjected to what can only be described as very partisan interjecting.

The most recent information that I have provided to the honourable senator is that the Minister’s advice is that the three projects to extend national television services to the Eyre Peninsula region will be completed by early next year. I do not have specific information about the purchase of equipment which was mentioned by the honourable senator in his question, but I assume from that information that the various aspects of the matter, including purchase of equipment, are on track. I did write the honourable senator a letter to that effect on 22 February and I understand that there is no change in that position.

It is also my understanding that the Minister has indicated that, given no unexpected difficulties, transmission should be expected to commence early in 1 98 1 . My advice is that there is no reason at this stage to believe that that will not be achieved. The Minister has also said to me that, given the unhappy history of this whole project, he will ensure as best he can that everything is done to honour undertakings given to the honourable senator and to residents of Eyre Peninsula. I thank the honourable senator for his continuing concern in this matter. It is the wish of the Government to match his concern with performance.

Senator McLaren:

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

The PRESIDENT:

- Mr Minister, do you have a document?

Senator Chaney:

– Yes, I have a document.

The PRESIDENT:

-Will you table the document?

Senator Chaney:

– Yes.

page 2637

QUESTION

ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LTD

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General and follows a question asked by Senator Evans as to who has final responsibility in the Ministry for the matters raised by Sir Reginald Ansett concerning the Broadcasting and Television Act. The Minister described the question as hypothetical and said that he would not indicate where final responsibility lies. The Minister, in his letter to Mr Staley of 22 January, said: the question whether any action of the kind suggested by Sir Reginald Ansett should be taken on behalf of the Government is primarily a matter for you as Minister administering the Broadcasting and Television Act 1 942.

Why did the Minister make that statement? What is hypothetical about it? Does it not in fact say that, according to the Attorney himself, the responsibility does lie with Mr Staley?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– It is quite clear that Senator Wriedt, at all events, does not fully appreciate the nature of the request that was being made to me. Sir Reginald Ansett ‘s letter to me ends with the statement:

We ask that you take full action to investigate the matter and to enforce this law of the Commonwealth.

The first thing that had to be done was to investigate the matter. I have tried to explain that I am not, nor is my Department, an investigative agency, and that primarily the investigation should be conducted by the Minister responsible for the Act. If I am administering an Act, of course I have a responsibility to see that some investigation takes place. In those cases I usually invite the police to make the investigation. But in a situation in which the Act is being administered by another Minister, it has been primarily for that Minister to decide what is to be done about the investigation. That is why I said that the question of who is ultimately responsible for launching a prosecution is still at this stage hypothetical, and it certainly was during the period of this correspondence.

page 2638

QUESTION

REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the continued rioting and civil disturbances in the Republic of Korea. Has the Minister any information concerning the safety of Australians attached to our mission in Seoul, and in particular the many missionaries and aid workers in the provinces? Does the Minister see any indication that the situation might deteriorate further? Has the Minister any information on the position of the United States of America in the event of North Korea perhaps miscalculating and launching some sort of attack against the South?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The advice I have on the political situation in Korea is that after the assassination of President Park in October 1 979, an interim administration under the presidency of the former Prime Minister set about a program of constitutional reform. That program appears to be at an end. After a seizure of power in the Korean military in December 1 979, a new power group in the military began to assume wider authority, despite assertions to the contrary. There has been a form of martial law in Korea since the Park assassination. That has now been widened. Although President Choi remains in office, his Cabinet has submitted its resignation and political leaders expected to seek the presidency at the next election have been arrested or placed under house arrest. The immediate justification for the military’s assumption of wider powers was some student unrest in Seoul last week. This week the situation in the provincial city of Kwangju has deteriorated and appears to be beyond government or miliary control for the moment.

We do not see any immediate external threat to the Republic of Korea. The United States of America, while strongly critical of events in the ROK, has reaffirmed its commitment to the defence of the ROK from external attack. The situation in the ROK greatly concerns us. We value our growing relations with the Republic of Korea. Such developments as have been brought about in the past several weeks do not assist these relations with Korea to grow nor do they contribute to the security and stability of the region.

In relation to the safety of Australians, the Ambassador in Seoul has written to registered Australians suggesting that they keep informed of developments and suggesting also that common sense dictates that they consider carefully whether they need to travel within Korea. The present situation does not appear to call for evacuation. The Embassy is not aware at this stage of any Australians being injured or at risk.

page 2638

QUESTION

TELEVISION TRANSMISSION OF OLYMPIC GAMES

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question is addressed either to the Leader of the Government in the Senate or to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is it a fact that under the provisions of the International Telecommunication Convention, which was ratified by Australia in 1967, signatory states may suspend telecommunications, provided that they inform all other signatories? Is it the Government’s intention to exercise its rights under this agreement and instruct the Channel 7 network that the network will not be able to cover the Olympic Games, for which Channel 7 already has entered into a contract? Has the network already had pressure applied to it to cancel the contract, including an implied threat that its transmissions might be cut off under the provisions of the Convention?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for reply.

Senator Wriedt:

– See if we can get an answer by tomorrow.

Senator CHANEY:

– I might.

page 2639

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL OUTSTATIONS

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is it true that the outstation movement in tribal Aboriginal communities has not lived up to the more optimistic hopes expressed for it some five years ago? Is it true that those seeking to escape the difficulties of the more established Aboriginal communities have now largely been disappointed to find those difficulties repeated at the outstations, and that this, in turn, is leading to a second wave of outstation settlements? Does the Government recognise the dangers of duplication of facilities if services beyond water, storage and sanitation are established at the outstations, such duplication endangering the best provision of facilities in the majority of settlements?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I do not agree with the questioner that the outstation movement has not lived up to the more optimistic hopes of those who moved to the outstations, although I agree that there has been a mixture of results with respect to outstations. Coincidently, there are in the Senate gallery today a number of people who I think are exponents of the outstation movement and who would probably say that there are considerable advantages in a decentralisation away from settlements, which essentially are artificial gatherings of Aboriginal people. My answer to the first part of the question is that the result has been mixed and, no doubt, the attitude of those who have taken part is mixed as a result.

In relation to the repetition of difficulties, I think it is true that some areas that have been designated as outstations have involved rather larger gatherings of people than has been desirable and that some further fragmentation has resulted to avoid the difficulties of the larger settlements, which generally are difficulties of intercommunal friction and tension that lead to various forms of anti-social behaviour. I think this second wave of outstations, like the first, again has some mixture of results. I must say that whilst I have not visited the stations in northern South Australia- but I hope to visit them in the next few weeks- I made a recent visit to the Hermannsburg area which reminded me of just how valuable this sort of decentralisation can be. I believe that the problems of duplication of services which the honourable senator referred to in the fourth part of his question are problems which can be overcome given a reasonable central administration. Again I was impressed by the way that Hermannsburg health and education services are being provided to decentralised communities in a way which I think is very positive. We have here at the moment delegations from the Pitjantjatjara area and some other areas in Western Australia which are talking to the Government about the medical services which it is providing without duplication of State services.

I concede, in answer to the question, that there are difficulties of duplication, that there are successes and failures. But I think for the time being, given the condition of Aboriginal people in large artificial settlements, that the outstations have a very valuable role to play.

page 2639

QUESTION

AIR NIUGINI

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Tate asked me on 20 May whether the Australian Government was concerned by allegations made by a senior member of the Government of Papua New Guinea that Ansett Transport Industries Ltd had deliberately acted against the best interests of Papua New Guinea and whether the Government would hold an investigation into the matter in order to ensure that relations between Australia and Papua New Guinea were not impaired as a result of the nature of the allegations. Senator Tate ‘s questions relate to media reports, of which I have no corroboration. Nor, I am advised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock), has the Government of Papua New Guinea sought to raise this matter with the Australian Government. The matter is essentially an internal one for the Government of Papua New Guinea and no action is proposed by the Australian Government.

If this or relevant matters were to be raised with the Government by the Government of Papua New Guinea, they would of course receive close consideration. The Government attaches great importance to the relationship with Papua New Guinea. Our interest in the continued economic development of Papua New Guinea and in the smooth and efficient management of Air Niugini is demonstrated by the Government’s concurrence to Trans-Australia Airlines making available, at the request of the Government of Papua New Guinea, the services of the Queensland manager of TAA.

page 2639

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- I wish to make a personal explanation. I sought leave to make a personal explanation to explain the reasons for my loud interjections during the question from Senator Jessop, to which you, Mr President, rightfully objected. Having had the answer tabled I am now able to ascertain that it was not a question without notice, because there is no way that any Minister could type up this document in the short space of time between the question being asked and the question being answered. That is quite obvious. The thing that concerns me is that the Minister in reply- this is what caused my loud interjections- spoke about the unhappy history of television for the west coast.

I interjected because Senator Jessop had made a public statement in 1977 that the people on the west coast would have had television by the end of that year, which we know they did not have. Now he is seeking to undermine all the good work done by Mr Wallis. I will have something more to say about that in the adjournment debate tonight.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– by leave- I regret seeing the Senate reduced to the level of puerility. As is often the case, an indication was given to me that a senator wished to ask a question on a subject. That was the full extent of notice given. As a result of that I ensured that I was briefed for this Question Time. I think that the continuous attempts to make a point of this are puerile. If honourable senators opposite wish to have every question simply referred to the appropriate Minister, then of course that option is available to them. I would like to say that I have no intention of trying to guess at answers in this place or spending a lot of time trying to be clever by guessing at questions which may be asked. I believe that the practice which is being apparently complained about is a practice which is sensible. I believe that complaint is consistent with some of the less desirable behaviour in this place at the moment, which I think is reducing the standard of the Senate that so much should be made of so little.

page 2640

HEALTH INSURANCE

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 uncertainty in the community caused by continuing speculation about future changes to the health insurance system.

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

More than the number of senators required by

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I have proposed this matter of public importance for discussion because the subject is topical and is causing considerable concern not only to the Opposition but also to patients, doctors and the Press in this country. We believe that we should give the Government the opportunity to make a clear and concise statement on just where it intends to go in the health insurance field. Without such a statement our health insurance system and our health system in general will continue to deteriorate.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Especially if you promote it.

Senator GRIMES:

- Senator Baume is apparently of the view that the best way to avoid these things happening is to ignore them and not talk about them. That is not the view of the Opposition, but it points out one of the problems of the Government. The Government believes that if it ignores problems they will somehow disappear through the mystical operations of market forces and other things. This will not happen and has not happened in the health insurance system.

The most prominent feature of our health insurance system since this Government came to power has in fact been uncertainty, and from this uncertainty has come confusion- confusion in the minds of the patients, confusion in the minds of the doctors and great confusion in the minds of those who operate the voluntary health insurance funds. To the confusion which has been caused by the repeated changes to the health insurance system by this Government can be added the confusion which is caused by repeated speculation provoked by Government inspired leaks to the Press of this country, by leaks from those with vested interests in the area and by statements by various Ministers.

On 19 May this year the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) said that more changes were likely to the health insurance scheme- more changes to a scheme that has had some eight changes in the last four years- because of ‘economic circumstances ‘, but that he would guarantee reasonable access to health care. What does reasonable’ mean to the new Minister for Health? Coming from the team that in 1 975 gave us the statement ‘We will maintain Medibank’, this sort of vague generalisation by a Minister about reasonable access to health care must cause anxiety in the minds of patients, doctors and those who are concerned about health insurance in the community.

The tragedy about the frequent changes to our health insurance system which have occurred in the last four years is that these changes have had nothing to do with health. There has been political and economic fiddling with the system, mainly to affect the consumer price index to suit one or other of the Budget requirements of the Treasurer (Mr Howard). We have had nine amendments to health legislation in four years. Some of the amendments have directly reversed previous ones. For instance, the original Medibank scheme introduced through this place had no levy attached to it because the LiberalCountry Party Opposition of those days opposed the levy. One can remember Senator Baume standing on this side of the chamber and, with his usual skill and articulate speech, giving very good and coherent reasons why we should not have a Medibank levy. The next year the Liberal-National Country Party, then in government, introduced the levy, saying that it was necessary for the economic salvation of this country. The next year it decided to get rid of the same levy again. We had blocks of money going in and out of the Budget, in and out of public revenue, to fund health insurance in this country. As I say, the result was confusion.

Many further changes occurred. Among the most unfortunate was the new concept of a disadvantaged patient, thus demeaning the patient and turning the clock back to the 19th century workhouse era. This concept was introduced by the present Government when it wanted to get rid of bulk billing. We have ended up with confusion, high costs to individuals and dissatisfaction by consumers and suppliers of health care. Even the Australian Medical Association, that fine conservative organisation, once a fervent supporter of the conservatives in government in this country is exasperated. The organisation which Senator Baume once said in this place would co-operate with anybody except the Labor Government is now in a state of exasperation. It does not know what to do about the health insurance system. I quote what the President of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Wilson, has said. On page 8 of the current annual report of the association it is stated :

Last year’s health insurance changes had nothing to do with your health. They were intended to doctor the consumer price index. Tomorrow’s changes are designed to relieve the Government of the high cost of the previous arrangement. Considerations of health do noi enter into it.

Dr Wilson also said:

After suffering frequent changes in health care policies over the past seven years, most of them for the worse, Australia now has no coherent health policy at all.

In proposing this matter of public importance I ask for some consideration of a coherent health policy by those who are, at the moment, in charge of providing a reasonable health insurance scheme to all Australian citizens. The end result of all the changes in recent years has been disturbing to all who are concerned about health care. To the end of 1979 the number of people taking out medical health insurance in this country had dropped by 2 per cent. The number of people taking out hospital insurance had dropped by 7.3 per cent. Figures produced in April 1980 show that the trend is increasing. To that time some 250.000 people dropped medical insurance and 500,000 people dropped hospital cover. This has provoked cries of alarm from the Australian Medical Association, the voluntary health funds and the newspapers in this country. The Australian Medical Association used the rather colourful description that our health system is haemorrhaging.

One may ask why is this happening? Why are people dropping out of voluntary health insurance? The first reason is obvious to anyone who looks at the facts and figures. It is simply that health insurance costs far too much for the young, the low income earner and the single income family. It can cost up to $ 1 1 per week in New South Wales for very basic cover for an ordinary family. The second factor is that health insurance for the fit, the young, the healthy and in particular, the single person does not make economic sense. It is economic nonsense for someone who is fit, young and healthy to take out health insurance when he is at low risk of getting illnesses, and when it would cost considerable amounts of money to be treated. These people are waking up to this and are not taking out health insurance. The concept of community rating which is so important in any health insurance scheme goes out of the window straight away.

The only people who remain in the health insurance system are in fact the poor risk patients. These poor risk patients who have high claim rates are causing a drain on the voluntary health insurance funds. Some of these funds are therefore in trouble. For poor risk patients health insurance in this country is not a luxury; it is a necessity. For the low income earners, the young, the single income earners and the fit health insurance is a luxury they cannot afford or a luxury they can do without. We have a very real difficulty in the community. All sorts of ideas are being put about as to what can be done and what should be done. There have been various speculations, inspired leaks and statements in the Press from the Minister and we believe it is about time that people in the community knew just what will happen.

Not only is the cost of health insurance high but also people who pay money out of their weekly wages to take out health insurance to protect themselves against the cost of illness have no guarantee or security that they will be protected by that health insurance. That was demonstrated quite clearly today by Senator Watson in his question. Senator Watson is closely involved with this problem because he, like I, comes from Tasmania where there has been a most unfortunate collapse of a health insurance fund. That has affected people who had taken out premiums with that fund for years to be covered during times of illness. Many of those people were elderly, people who frequently had chronic illnesses and people who were frequently low income earners who had come into the Druids Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund in its original days through the lodges.

These people found out when the Druids organisation collapsed without warning that they were no longer covered for health insurance. Also, some of them had paid premiums up to 12 months in advance. Those premiums were lost. Local private hospitals which were owed money by the Druids fund for patients could no longer get that money; so the hospitals are now in trouble. Local doctors found that cheques from the Druids organisation were bouncing. Not only did these people have no warning of the collapse but also they were not told the position until five or six days after the organisation had collapsed, and after they had paid their premiums. Senator Watson asked in a question today, and I have asked during an Estimates committee meeting, why this happened. Why did this happen to a voluntary health insurance organisation which was regulated by the Department of Health, whose premiums were approved by the Minister for Health, which allegedly had to supply information to the Minister for Health to demonstrate that it was functioning as a viable organisation and whose functions supposedly were being regulated by the Department of Health.

The only thing that disturbs me about Senator Watson’s question, and which makes me ask where that question came from, is his imputation that the public servants in the Department of Health knew what was going on and did not let the Minister know. I suggest that Senator Watson look at questions asked and answers given during Estimates Committee hearings. He will find that the public servants did know what was going on, or suspected what was going on, but under the Health Insurance Act could not get the information they wanted. Even if they did have the information, under the Act they could not do anything about it anyhow. So, we have people in this community who in good faith and with the active encouragement of the Government are paying premiums to voluntary health insurance funds in the belief that the Government will guarantee that they will be covered for health insurance. There is no guarantee at all. As sure as God made little fishes -

Senator Peter Baume:

– Apples.

Senator GRIMES:

– Apples or fishes, whatever the honourable senator likes. I make up my own as I go.

Senator Tate:

– That is not bad, for an atheist.

Senator GRIMES:

– I am an atheist. As sure as eggs there will be more collapses of voluntary health funds because of the situation where low risk people are not insuring and high risk people are. For political reasons, at the moment the Government can do very little about the voluntary health insurance schemes. It will have to change the Act yet again to get reasonable control over those schemes. Insecurity and uncertainty are arising because people are leaving the voluntary health insurance schemes, and the health insurance funds do not know what to expect.

Let us look at the things that have been mooted by the Government, indicated by leaks to newspapers and in speeches by representatives of the voluntary health insurance funds and the Australian Medical Association, to overcome this difficulty. If the sorts of things that are being put about are in fact the intentions of the Government, we should know about them so that we can complain and demonstrate the inequalities and inequities they will produce. For instance, the Government has let it be known in answers in the House of Representatives that it is considering raising its contributions to the reinsurance pool. This is the pool of money which is contributed to by all the private funds and by the Government to spread equally between the funds the burden of the cost of health care for the chronically ill. As we know, the Government previously pegged its contribution to this pool, using as an argument that people should be aware of the real costs of health care. But in an election year that argument goes by the board. The real costs, if they are too high, are now to be hidden. If this proposal is put into effect, general revenue will be used to benefit not taxpayers generally but those members of the public who are in a private health fund.

Another proposal which is advanced frequently by members of the Government and certainly by health insurance operators is that health insurance contributions should be made tax deductible. This has even baser and more unpleasant political and economic implications. Tax deductibility for health insurance premiums will help only the top 10 per cent or 15 per cent of income earners in Australia- those whose combined deductions take them over the present $1,600 general rebate barrier. Even the cost of health care for major illnesses will not take the vast majority of the people in the community over that barrier. This proposal represents yet another step by the Government to assist the better off in the community, the wealthy, at the expense of the low income earners.

We have the disturbing situation of people wanting to introduce no claim bonus provisions into health insurance. Again, that is a traditional method which assists high income earners in the community, those who can take out insurance to cover just the extremes and bear the cost of ordinary health care themselves. Such a scheme would further divide the good and bad insurance risks and drive more good risks out of the private health insurance schemes. It would counter completely the community rating principle in which so many members on both sides of this House believe.

The proposal one sees most often in the Press and which one has heard referred to by Mr Hunt and later by Mr MacKellar is that the Government is looking at reintroducing the means test on public hospital admissions which existed in the past. Such a proposal would force into a health fund those who can pay for their health care. It would strike hardest at low income people and those in the community who genuinely believe that the best quality hospital care provided is public hospital care. Means tests are humiliating, particularly when they are applied only to someone who is ill and needs hospital care. I can remember having to face them myself. They were complex, and frequently people were put into the wrong hospital ward, separated out merely on the basis of income and not on the basis of need.

The difficulty is that the Government finds itself under great pressure from all sides to force people into the private health insurance system. We have ended up with a system which is neither efficient nor effective, but has a very high cost. My aim in raising this discussion is to get the Government to clarify the situation, to tell us, the patients, the health insurance funds, and everybody else in the community just where it intends to go in the future. While we have the situation we have now, we will remain with a system which is far too expensive for the low income earner, a system which will bring about the collapse of voluntary health insurance funds, a system which will satisfy neither the consumer nor the supplier of health care, and a system which will do nothing to assist the general health of the people in the community at large.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– The Senate is discussing a matter of public importance submitted by Senator Grimes concerning ‘uncertainty in the community’ caused by ‘continued speculation’, as Senator Grimes has put it, about future changes to the health insurance system.

The proposition to be put from this side is simple. The uncertainty in the community has been engendered and is being promoted and sustained by the Australian Labor Party for its own purposes. The continuing speculation comes from the Labor Party. We have many documents which indicate how the Labor Party has sought continually to create uncertainty, speculation and insecurity in relation to health insurance. I submit that in relation to this matter the ALP is clearly putting its own party political goals ahead of those of society, and in so doing it is once again abrogating and abdicating its responsibilities to this country. For months the ALP has been busy encouraging people to drop out of health insurance. The former Labor Party spokesman on health matters, Dr Klugman, in another place has on a number of occasions encouraged people to drop their health insurance cover. The ALP policy in relation to the creation of cover for women and children also encourages people to drop out of health insurance. Senator Grimes tells us about the importance of community rating at the same time as he and his party are busy encouraging people to look at a policy which would encourage them to drop out of health insurance altogether. I was attracted to an interview with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, in which he was asked questions about Labor’s proposed policy on health insurance. Mr Hayden was asked:

So it won’t be necessary for the Australian family to have private insurance?

He answered:

No need at all for them to take out private medical insurance if they are a normal healthy family.

The situation is quite simple. The ALP is doing its best to sabotage and undermine the health insurance system in this country, and to create uncertainty and confusion. Very clearly, these facts should be made public. It is personally irresponsible of the various spokesmen for the party who have done this, and it is socially irresponsible in terms of the kind of goals we should all be seeking. It is action calculated to harm the system and to create unnecessary turmoil and worry. Senator Grimes conveniently forgot to mention that, even with all the turmoil he talks about, about 60 per cent of the Australian community still has basic hospital and medical insurance cover, is satisfied with it and uses it. We are not going to be told that those people all represent the poor risks in society. They represent the mass of the Australian community, who believe in health insurance.

It is necessary to advert to another matter, and Senator Grimes did refer to it tangentiallyhealth insurance is not the same as health. Health insurance is not a social goal. Good health is a social goal. The people of Australia want the results. They want good health. They want good medical services. They want preventive services. They want to be healthier and more comfortable. The only purpose health insurance serves for Australia is to enable people to meet those social goals. In itself, health insurance has no value unless it is helping to meet those goals. What did Senator Grimes tell us today about the health goals in which the ALP believes? Not a thing. What comments did he have to offer on the recent initiatives by this Government to do something about inducing better health in Australian society? What did he say about outcomes in health? What did he say about planning, about which the ALP is so selfcongratulatory, calling itself a planning party, to quote the words used by Senator Wriedt in one public utterance? He did not say a single thing about planning and wanted us to swallow the argument that health insurance is a social end. I would have thought that the spokesman on social security, in raising a matter of public importance in this place, would have found time to say a little more about desirable outcomes, desirable results and how he would achieve them.

I have to look at States like New South Wales- my State- where the Labor Government has demonstrated an inability to provide hospital beds in areas where people live, and an inability to close hospital beds in areas where people do not live. In South Australia, under a Labor Government, scandals were brought to light by the Joint Statutory Committee of Public Accounts. In States like mine, which have a marked emphasis on institutional care, we have the disgrace of fully salaried medical officers with enormous trust funds funded from health insurance and the public, endorsed by the State governments which control the health commissions. That money being milked from health insurance and from governments is being applied to what are, in fact, slush funds.

Labor’s attack today is quite hypocritical. Its health policy, as spelled out so far, would lead to a large number of young families opting out of health insurance. Why does the Labor Party not say so? It is not right for Senator Grimes to come into this place and say that his party endorses the principle of community rating. Community rating means ‘all in’ and the Labor Party policy would promote ‘some out’. If the honourable senator does not accept that, the question was put to Mr Hayden directly and he acknowledged that that would be the result of Labor’s policy. Some people would withdraw from health insurance, as Mr Hayden openly acknowledged.

In a recorded statement to ALP branches Mr Hayden advised that under his ‘Kiddybank’ proposal there would be no need to take out private medical insurance if the family was normal and healthy. It is the Labor Party proposal which will be expected to lead to a marked reduction in the number of people taking out hospital insurance. It is the Labor Party proposal which would mean that the health insurance funds would come under increasing pressure and increasing strain. It is the Labor Party proposal which would put health insurance arrangements at risk as they are not being put at risk at the present time. I think that anyone should understand that it is proposals like the ALP proposal which would lead to increased contribution rates, and to all the undesirable things which Senator Grimes referred to today.

The present health insurance arrangements do promote and prosecute some very useful ends. The present health insurance arrangements provide hospital cover. They cover pensioners. After talking to many doctors I am quite convinced that the medical profession is co-operating with the Government to cover disadvantaged persons. The Government covers all costs in excess of $20. The Government helps to subsidise the costs of chronically ill patients needing hospital care. The health insurance system picks up a great deal of the remaining slack.

Senator Grimes asserts that health insurance is in some kind of danger. He asserts that there is some strain on the health insurance system and that there is some marked decrease in enrolments in health insurance funds. We have been monitoring, to the best of our ability, what the health insurance funds have to say and the number of people in the funds. I was interested to see that while some funds were losing membership other funds in my State of New South

Wales were gaining membership. It is a problem for anyone to extrapolate information from a very small sample base. I was interested, for example, to note that the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd had increased its membership by a very significant number.

Senator Melzer:

– Was it cheaper?

Senator PETER BAUME:

-Senator Melzer interjects that it was cheaper. The reason people change from one fund to another is that they find a cost advantage. There was only a small overall drop in the numbers insured. For December 1978 basic medical insurance was enjoyed by a little over 8.67 million Australians and a year later this figure had decreased in total by one per cent.

Senator Grimes:

– One in ten.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-By one per cent, one in 100, Senator Grimes. The figure was then 8.58 million people. If honourable senators look at basic hospital insurance they will see that the number of persons insured in December 1978 was 9.12 million and in December 1979 was 8.80 million, a decrease of 3.5 per cent. What is important is that the figures have stabilised since then and this gives every indication that the situation has stabilised.

I must refer for a few moments to fund failures. Senator Grimes mentioned them as an important item in the matter of public importance. Senator Grimes referred to the failure of one particular fund in his home State. However, he did not mention the history of fund failures in this country. He would have us believe, perhaps inadvertently, that fund failures are something new or that fund failures are more common than they used to be. Is that his assertion? Let us look at the figures. It is true that from 1976 to the present time 1 7 funds have gone out of existence for one reason or another. That statement is quite correct. But let us ask: What happened between 1 973 and 1 975 when Senator Grimes and his colleagues had the stewardship of this country? Between 1973 and 1975 17 funds also went out of existence. Those are the facts. On the basis of these figures there has hardly been a dramatic increase in relation to the financial problems of the funds.

The Druids Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund in Tasmania, which the honourable senator mentioned, did fail this year. This was a matter of great concern to many of the contributors, but the Druids fund failed to carry out its responsibility to provide information to the Government. The fault lay with the fund and the fund operators who did not provide information about the fund’s operations as they were required to do. This was made quite clear in Hansard of Estimates Committee C on 2 1 April 1 980. In answer to a question Mr Carroll said:

The record keeping and the information available in each organisation left much to be desired. The result is that both those requirements for a proper and adequate cyclic review by the Department have been missing.

Let me put on record that already- the problems which the Druids fund failure created have not been finalised- arrangements have been made for all Commonwealth medical benefits to be paid if people apply for them and for cost sharing with the public hospitals to be undertaken in relation to the contributors. The areas still required to be worked out concern those people who entered private hospitals and who have bills unpaid. Senator Grimes also omitted to tell the Senate that the Government’s health insurance arrangements have not resulted in a growing cost burden to the average Australian family over recent years. In all States except South Australia and Western Australia, health fund contributors are now able to obtain basic medical and hospital insurance at premiums lower than those applying before November 1978. Those are the facts. Contributors can now obtain basic medical and hospital insurance at premiums lower than those applying before 1978. The ALP talk about non-availability of cheaper health insurance is really quite fraudulent. It is merely talk about how the cost should be shared between the private and public sectors. The ALP’s program will not do anything to cut down the total cost of providing medical services for Australian people. It concerns the intersectoral transfer between health insurance premiums and payments from Consolidated Revenue by way of various kinds of taxes. The ALP cannot pretend to be reducing the load on society just by transferring the costs from individuals to taxation. All that does is hide the expenditure. It does no good.

The health insurance industry actually serves a very useful role in Australia: It is widely placed; it is trusted; it offers protection; it is responsible to the community it serves; it is flexible in the packages it offers; it is now very competitive and it has to compete with government. I remind the Senate that the Health Insurance Commission offers insurance. Most private funds cannot call on government for $ 10m to bail them out in the way in which the Health Insurance Commission was able to do recently. We do not oppose change in health insurance arrangements where improvement is likely to ensue. We encourage improvement. We believe the system should be looked at continually. To claim that any system is perfect or immutable is foolish and unproductive. We do not intend to pre-empt any improvements. We do not intend to speculate. We do not intend to alarm the public. We do not intend to talk down the system, as the ALP is trying to do. I believe it has done no service to the Senate today in this matter which it has advanced. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator GRIMES (Tasmania)-by leaveAmongst the many misrepresentations which Senator Peter Baume made, there was one which I would like to correct. He said that I claimed that there were fund failures under the present health insurance arrangements, and then proceeded to attempt to demonstrate that there was an equal number under the Labor regime. I point out to the Senate that there have been four fund failures in the last two years affecting contributors to health insurance funds. The cessation of operation of funds during the term of office of the Labor Government was because these funds were no longer necessary with Medibank arrangements, and there were in fact no fund failures during the years in which Labor was in office.

page 2646

QUESTION

RELEASE OF EVIDENCE AND RECORDS OF CERTAIN SENATE AND JOINT COMMITTEES

Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle)- by leave- proposed: 1. (A) That the Senate authorises the President of the Senate to permit any person to examine and take extracts from evidence submitted to, or records of, committees which are in the custody of the Senate and which have been in its custody for at least 10 years, provided that such evidence was not taken in camera or submitted on a confidential or restricted basis and provided further that the President reports to the Senate the nature of the documents made available and the person or persons to whom they have been made available; and

  1. That the release of evidence and records of joint com mittees be authorised on the joint authority of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives under the same conditions as provided in paragraph

(A).

  1. That the foregoing resolutions have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.
  2. That a message be sent to the House of Representatives transmitting these resolutions for its information and seeking concurrence in that part of the resolutions relating to the evidence and records of joint committees.
Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– The Opposition was given notice of this motion. I must confess that I did not read it but I took note of what the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) was saying.

It seems to me that there ought to be some consideration of the proposal, especially as to the 10-year period specified. I would have thought that with some discussion and consultation we could agree to a lesser period. 1 know my views on this matter, but I am not certain of my party’s position on it. I am informed that its Caucus agreed to this matter last November, so what I put to you, Mr President, is a personal opinion. We should consider that period to be five years rather than 10 years. It seems to me that 10 years is far too long, in these times when we are seeking freedom of information, for us to have important documents in our custody before people have access to those documents. However, since my party has discussed the matter and agreed to the proposition, I have nothing further to say.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2646

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-I present a progress report from the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment on its inquiry into Australian marine science.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator JESSOP ( 12.26)-by leave-I move:

On 1 November 1 979 the 200-nautical-mile Australian fishing zone was declared. The Committee believes that this should soon be followed by declaration of a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone and has so recommended in the report. Declaration of the zone makes this country responsible for approximately 7 million square kilometres of ocean. This is the second largest zone in the world. The United States of America has 7.8 million square kilometres. The Australian zone covers an area of ocean almost the same size as the Australian land mass. One or two members of the Committee realise that, having traversed most of the coast of Australia in a Royal Australian Air Force Orion aircraft in recent times.

The national interest with respect to this zone is concerned with solving problems arising from international interests affected by the zone; administration of the zone; mineral exploitation; fisheries development; coastal development and marine installations; marine navigation; marine environmental protection; weather forecasting, and marine research. All these matters require support from marine science. Decisions affecting them cannot be properly arrived at without information from marine science. But the present level of Australian marine science is well below that necessary to meet national needs, even without declaration of the fishing zone.

Australia lacks a national plan for the marine sciences and technologies. She lacks agreement on goals, priorities and strategies and has not yet developed an appropriate institutional framework for the development of her marine capabilities. As the 200-nautical-mile limits begin to take effect in various countries, the world’s fishing fleets will be constrained to conform to a new regime calling for a different outlook towards the value of fisheries and the need for their protection. If Australia’s intention to declare the exclusive economic zone is to be taken seriously, the will and the resources to secure and exploit it must be forthcoming. It is necessary to demonstrate to other nations that the zone belongs to Australia.

Problems already exist with management of fish resources. We have little idea of the size and the nature of the saleable resources or what other countries are willing to pay for access to it. Thus, declaration of any fishing or economic zone without determination to exploit it or enforce its protection is likely to result in problems at the international level as the seriousness of Australia’s intent is tested. Thus, the adequate study, management control and protection of this huge sea area will require national leadership, coupled with a considerably larger research effort than hitherto. Proper provision will have to be made at once for staff, ships and shore facilities. A great deal more is needed than the $25m recently announced by the Government to move the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s marine laboratories from Cronulla to Hobart and to provide one new research vessel.

Relocation of the CSIRO marine research laboratories in Hobart does very little towards solving the problem, and the splitting of the present Division of Fisheries and Oceanography into two Divisions in separate institutes appears to compound the problem rather than contribute to a solution. Certainly, a new research vessel will be welcome, but Australia needs at least four more civilian research vessels to mount even a modest program against immediate national needs.

It was to identify these immediate needs and make positive recommendations to meet them, that the Committee is tabling a progress report at this time. This has led the Committee to recommend several important measures. Firstly, we recommend that the Government accept responsibility for a significant expansion of marine science. This will entail definition of a national policy, establishment of priorities, development of appropriate programs and allocation of suitable funds and resources. Any such policy and programs must be related to the national interest in the marine area in its widest sense. The Committee believes this necessitates a broadening of the terms of reference of the Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Advisory Committee to include advice on the formulation and execution of national policy for the marine sciences, as required to meet the national interest. The Committee recommends the building up of the present fleet of oceangoing marine research vessels, from the present two, to six by 1986, either by purchase, construction or hire. In the interim, the possible increased use of other Commonwealth vessels for research purposes should be investigated. The Committee envisages the fleet of research vessels being deployed as a national facility, with access to the fleet being open in principal to all marine scientists in Australia. The Committee also recommends that the use of other technology such as satellites, remote ocean sensors and aircraft be explored to supplement, and help orient, shipborne research.

The magnitude of the marine science challenge facing this country leads the Committee to the belief that we will ultimately require a National Institute of Marine Resources which can become the ‘CSIRO of the Sea’. The Institute should contain Divisions covering: Marine research liaison and ship operations; physical oceanography; marine biology; fisheries; marine engineering; marine environmental protection; marine data services; extension services to marine industries. This Institute would be responsible for operational management of the national research vessel fleet but would not allocate ship time. This would be done by a committee of major ship users. Because the committee believes it would be more efficient and less costly to develop existing organisations rather than establish new ones, it recommends that, in the first instance, CSIRO aggregate all its marine activities into one institute.

Other recommendations cover the development of a co-ordinated marine science information system; increased support for marine taxonomy and for marine research stations. The Committee’s inquiry is not yet complete. It wishes to gather more evidence and to hear the views of further witnesses before considering its final report which will amplify many of the topics touched on in the progress report. The final report is expected to discuss the organisation and the funding of marine science in Australia and, in particular the role of regional research organisations, their relationship to the proposed Institute of Marine Resources and their use of the national marine research facility.

I think it would be appropriate at this stage to acknowledge the support that has been given to me by the members of my Committee in ensuring that this progress report is presented at this time, which is in the months immediately preceding Budget considerations. We felt that it was necessary to highlight the importance of marine science to Australia, to focus the attention of the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson), the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and Cabinet on the need to provide far more adequate funds for the purposes outlined in this report. Because of the urgency of this report, I am grateful to the Committee staff, our secretary, Mr Peter Dawe, Miss Sue Thompson, who has worked exceptionally hard on this report, and of course our stenographer, Jan Langton. I pay them a sincere tribute. Without their support, of course, our Committee work would have been rendered impossible. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave -The Opposition, of course, welcomes the progress report and commends the Committee for its efforts. It is a pity that we did not have this progress report prior to the debate which took place yesterday on that package of Bills on offshore responsibilities. Could I just make the short comment that the recommendations of the Committee showed the national approach of the Committee, and are somewhat in conflict with the policy of the Government as revealed in those packages of Bills which we passed in a guillotine fashion yesterday. It is fairly obvious that, had we been allowed to debate those Bills fully, both Senator Jessop and other members of the Committee would have contributed substantially to the debate. Nevertheless, the Committee has brought down a report, the recommendations of which will be examined, and no doubt in due course we will have a government response to that report. It will be interesting to see that government response. I recommend therefore that at an early opportunity in the Budget session on a General Business night we should have the opportunity to debate the recommendations and to accept and acknowledge the breadth of view, the broad view, the national view that this Committee has taken in a very responsible and important area of research.

page 2648

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Report of the Australian Wheat Board

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I seek leave to make a statement on behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations in relation to the report of the Australian Wheat Board for the year ending 30 November 1977 which was tabled in the House of Representatives yesterday.

Leave granted.

Senator RAE:

– The Senate Committee has previously reported on a number of occasions to this chamber and the chamber has expressed its concern in relation to the lengthy delays in the presentation of annual reports and financial statements by the Australian Wheat Board. The Committee has considered its response to the matters set out in the Australian Wheat Board report tabled yesterday, and in particular to the qualification to that report which was made by the Auditor-General. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Committee’s statement of 15 pages which is given in response to the AuditorGeneral ‘s report.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Mr President, I wish to make a statement as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations in relation to the Australian Wheat Board. Honourable senators will recall the previous history of the Committee’s investigation into the Board’s failure to produce its financial statements. The Board ‘s problems stem from the change in its accounting requirements caused by its new enabling legislation, the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1974. Before this Act, the Board had only to prepare pools realisation statements, on a cash basis. The Act has led to the requirement for the Board to produce statements of assets and liabilities and of income and expenditure, prepared on an accrual basis. In 1980 it is still struggling to comply with this requirement which applies to most statutory authorities with commercial activities.

In its investigation of the delays in the presentation of the Wheat Board ‘s financial statements the Committee has discerned an inability on the part of the Board to appreciate the importance of complying with its statutory obligation. The Committee has received the distinct impression that the Board considers that the preparation of the pools realisation statements, prepared on a cash basis, is its most important accounting task because this is the statement which calculates how much money is to be paid to the wheatgrowers. The Committee considers that this attitude is unacceptable. It is true that the Board owes an obligation to the growers to make the necessary payments. However, it also owes a very clear obligation to the Parliament and through it to the taxpayer (and indeed to the growers themselves) to account for its activities and its use of public funds by allowing a judgment to be made on its financial position and on its efficiency. These judgments can only be made on the basis of commercial accrual accounting required by the Board’s enabling legislation.

It has been the policy of successive Governments, as expressed by the Department of Finance, for authorities involved in commercial activities such as the Board to keep accounts ‘in accordance with the accounting principles generally applied in commercial practice’. The Minister for Finance, who approves the form of financial statements, seeks to have authorities such as the Board disclose at least as much information in their financial statements as companies are required to under the Companies Act. The reason for the Government’s policy and for the Committee’s opinion is simply that cash accounts such as pools realisation statements do not give a complete picture of the Board ‘s financial position, nor do they permit a judgment to be made on its performance, for example, by comparing it with other commercial enterprises both within and without the public sector. Commercial, or accrual, accounting permits the preparation of a balance sheet showing the assets and liabilities of the organisation, and a profit and loss statement showing the results of the accrued income and expenditure during the year. It includes important items which are excluded from a cash accounting system. These items include provisions for superannuation and long service leave, debtors and creditors accounts, stores and inventory records, and year-end adjustments for expenses owing and revenue due.

No one can know the true financial position of a statutory authority, if its statements are prepared on a cash basis as its accruing assets and liabilities are not disclosed. The AuditorGeneral, in his report, attached to the 1976-77 financial statements of the Wheat Board states in relation to the Board’s major asset, wheat: ‘The omission of the value of stocks of wheat from the financial statements prevents the matching of income and expenditure for the period and the full adoption of accrual accounting’. The AuditorGeneral made similar statements in his report in regard to liabilities not being properly accrued.

The Auditor-General also reported that. ‘It is considered inappropriate to maintain primary accounting records on a cash basis when the approved form of financial statements consists of income and expenditure and assets and liabilities’. In the Committee’s view there is no true disclosure unless these matters are revealed to the Parliament and the public.

It is true that the growers are interested in how much money they are paid for their wheat. But they and the public are both interested, and have a duty to ensure the performance of the authority responsible for handling such vast amounts of their money, resulting from a compulsory acquisition scheme which exists only by Statute. They are therefore entitled to know the financial position of the Board by being able to examine accounts prepared in a normal commercial way according to generally accepted accounting standards. The taxpayer also has a stake in the financial activities of the Wheat Board and therefore in its efficiency.

Contributions by the Commonwealth Government have been made to the Wheat Prices Stabilisation Fund when the fund contained an insufficient level of industry contributions to meet required payments. Government contributions were $61m in the period of 1958-59, $95 m in the period 1963-64 and $141 m in the period 1968-69. Under the provisions of the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act 1974 the Commonwealth Government is potentially liable to contribute $30m in any one season to the Fund. Because the fund has accumulated sufficient grower reserves no Commonwealth contribution has been required in recent years. However, in 1979-80 taxpayers will pay an interest subsidy to the Wheat Board of about $6.5m to compensate the Board for having to make commercial borrowings to enable payments to grower on delivery of their wheat.

The accounting change resulted in a substantial delay in the presentation of the Board’s financial statements to the Parliament. When the Board ‘s report for the 1 977-78 financial year was tabled in the Senate on 13.9.79 and the Board’s complete financial statements had not been tabled since 1975-76, the Senate referred the matter to this Committee for investigation. The Committee inquired into the matter in the remainder of 1979 and held a public hearing with the Wheat Board in October 1 979.

The 1976-77 financial statements had still not been presented to the Parliament by 22 November 1979 when the legislation for the new wheat marketing scheme was introduced into the

Senate. The following amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bills was unanimously carried by the Senate:

At the end of motion, add, but the Senate, bearing in mind the importance or timely and full accountability by statutory authorities and the interests of wheat growers in Australia, is of the opinion that the Australian Wheat Board has:

failed to fulfil its statutory responsibility to provide financial statements to the Parliament in respect of the years 1976-77 and 1977-78;

failed to honour an assurance given to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on 8 October 1979, to complete the preparation of their financial statements within two to three weeks;

failed to observe both its accountability obligations and normal courtesy in that it did not inform the Senate Committee or the Parliament of its management decision that the assurance was ‘not practicable ‘ nor of its decision taken on 30 October 1979 to adopt a changed approach to the preparation of its financial statements, and that they will not now be available for presentation to the Parliament until February 1980 for the 1976-77 financial statements, and March 1980 for the 1977-78 financial statements;

And, further, the Senate expresses its intention to take all necessary steps to ensure that full accountability to the Parliament and the Australian wheatgrowers is adhered to by the Australian Wheat Board.’

The Minister for Primary Industry supported the Senate’s stand. In a letter to me of 20 November 1979 he said:

The Parliament has empowered the Board to carry out important functions. One of these is to prepare and furnish a report for Parliament on the operations and financial accounts of the Board. I consider that the delays in preparing and furnishing statements for the years ended 30 November 1977 and 1978 are unacceptable and do not meet the standards of responsibility required by the Parliament. I have now advised the Board to this effect, reminded it of its responsibility and asked the Board to ensure that the two financial statements are furnished for presenting to Parliament in February and March 1980.’

The Committee held a further hearing with the Wheat Board in December 1979 at which assurances were given that the statements would be ready by the end of December 1979. The Committee reported to the Senate in February this year. This report expressed our great concern at the long delay in the presentation of the Wheat Board’s 1976-77 statements. We informed the Senate that the Committee would keep a close watch on developments. The Board was unable to transmit its financial statements to the Auditor-General by the end of December 1979 as indicated to the Committee. The Committee therefore held a further hearing with the Board on 27 February 1980. The Board gave further assurances that the statements would be presented as soon as possible.

The Auditor-General’s Office discovered that many items in the 1976-77 statements did not comply with accepted accounting standards. So many items needed correction that in fact the audit of the statements took much longer than normal. The Committee would like to make it quite clear that in our view the delay in the presentation of the statements since their transmission to the Auditor-General has not been caused by any tardiness on the part of the Auditor-General’s Office. The delay has been caused by the Board ‘s inability to produce financial statements of an acceptable standard. The following brief chronology will emphasise this point. The draft statements for 1976-77 were not transmitted to the Auditor-General until 17 January 1980. Before then the Auditor-General had not been given access to the Board ‘s working papers. The draft notes to the statements which were of course of great importance, were not transmitted until 16 February 1980. On 20 February 1980 revised draft statements and notes were transmitted, i.e. incorporating changes suggested by the Auditor-General’s Office. The first set of signed statements and notes were transmitted on 25 February 1980, additional revised statements and notes on 26 February and 27 February. Draft revised notes were then sent on 13 March, and yet further signed statements on 20 March. Replacement pages for the statements and notes were again sent on 25 March and finally on 29 April 1 980.

In other words, between January and the end of April 1980, the Auditor-General’s office was regularly suggesting that changes were necessary to the Board’s statements. There were many changes, including a final adjustment involving an amount in excess of $ 1 50m. The Wheat Board was not able to correct the last error until 29 April 1980- only three weeks ago.

The Auditor-General reported to the Minister for Primary Industry on the Board’s 1976-77 statements on 16 May 1980. From its investigations, the Committee naturally believed that the Auditor-General’s report could contain many qualifications. The Committee was therefore concerned to obtain a copy of the report. The Committee did not wish to release the report publicly before its presentation to the Parliament. We have been given responsibility by the Senate for the continuing oversight of statutory authorities, and specifically for the financial statements of the Australian Wheat Board. The Committee therefore was concerned to inform itself of the full situation to enable us to report to the Senate, especially in the light of the motion of 22 November 1 979 which I quoted earlier. The

Committee initially sought to obtain a copy of the report from the Wheat Board. The Board declined on the basis that the Minister for Primary Industry stated that in his view the Board had no authority to pass the report to the Committee. This left the Committee with the alternatives of obtaining a copy of the report either from the Auditor-General or the Minister. Because of the Auditor-General’s special position in relation to the Parliament it has been a long standing practice for communications between his Office and parliamentary committees to be on a confidential basis. In addition, the Auditor-General considers that it is important that reports of this type not be publicly released prior to their presentation to the Parliament in order to conform with the accepted relationship between an auditor and his client. Furthermore, there are difficulties in the Auditor-General disclosing information because of the secrecy provisions of the Audit Act (section 14C). For these reasons the Committee decided not to seek a copy of the Auditor-General’s report from the AuditorGeneral. However, the exact relationship between the Auditor-General and the Parliament, particularly concerning his audits of statutory authorities, is obviously uncertain. The Committee will take up the matter in the future, discuss it with the Auditor-General and report back to the Senate. The Minister for Primary Industry has now tabled the Wheat Board’s 1976-77 financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report. It is clear from the Auditor-General’s report that the concern which the Committee has expressed about the Wheat Board’s statements has been amply justified.

The Auditor-General concluded that the statements contain serious inadequacies and departures from accounting standards. These are listed in his report. He concludes by stating that in spite of the considerable efforts made by the accounting staff of the Board, its: ‘records and system of internal control are so inadequate that even more extensive testing would not enable me to satisfy myself as to the truth and fairness of the accounts’. He therefore reported that, ‘Because of the material deficiencies referred to throughout this report, I am of the opinion that the statements are not based on proper accounts and records and do not show fairly the financial transactions for the year ended 30 November 1977, and the state of affairs of the Australian Wheat Board as at that date’.

The Auditor-General’s conclusions confirm those of the Committee in our report of February 1980 on the Wheat Board. The Committee would like to express yet again our great concern that such a large and commercially significant statutory authority as the Wheat Board continuously failed to come to grips with its statutory obligations which are the norm for all public companies. It has continued to fail to be able to produce acceptable financial statements two and a half years after the completion of its 1976-77 financial year. The Auditor-General also concluded that no useful purpose can be served by attempting further to refine statements which are now so old and that future efforts would be more fruitfully employed in ensuring that the Board ‘s accounting system can meet current requirements in a reliable and timely fashion. The Committee agrees with this conclusion. We consider that it is better for the statements to have been presented to the Parliament even with such a heavily qualified audit certificate than for the Parliament and the public to be kept in ignorance of the Board ‘s financial position. However, we consider that the main priority for the future should be the task force on the Board ‘s accounts to which I referred earlier. The Committee will maintain a watching brief to ensure that the task force succeeds in creating a new and acceptable accounting system for the Board.

The Minister for Primary Industry has now tabled the Wheat Board’s 1976-77 financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report. It is clear from the Auditor-General’s report that the concern which the Committee has expressed about the Wheat Board’s statements has been amply justified. The Auditor-General concluded that the statements contain serious inadequacies and departures from accounting standards. These are listed in his report. He concludes by stating that in spite of the considerable efforts made by the accounting staff of the Board, its records and system of internal control are so inadequate that even more extensive testing would not enable me to satisfy myself as to the truth and fairness of the accounts’. He therefore reported that, ‘Because of the material deficiencies referred to throughout this report, I am of the opinion that the statements are not based on proper accounts and records and do not show fairly the financial transactions for the year ended 30 November 1977, and the state of affairs of the Australian Wheat Board as at that date’.

The Auditor-General’s conclusions confirm those of the Committee in our report of February 1 980 on the Australian Wheat Board. The Committee would like to express yet again our great concern that such a large and commercially significant statutory authority as the Wheat Board continuously failed to come to grips with its statutory obligations which are the norm for all public companies. It has continued to fail to be able to produce acceptable financial statements 2lh years after the completion of its 1976-77 financial year.

The Auditor-General also concluded that no useful purpose can be served by attempting further to refine statements which are now so old and that future efforts would be more fruitfully employed in ensuring that the Board’s accounting system can meet current requirements in a reliable and timely fashion. The Committee agrees with this conclusion. We consider that it is better for the statements to have been presented to the Parliament even with such a heavily qualified audit certificate than for the Parliament and the public to be kept in ignorance of the Board’s financial position. However, we consider that the main priority for the future should be the task force on the Board ‘s accounts to which I referred earlier. The Committee will maintain a watching brief to ensure that the task force succeeds in creating a new and acceptable accounting system for the Board.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave- As an Opposition member of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, it concerns me that the Committee has had to make such a condemnatory report of a statutory body which, by Act of Parliament, has a responsibility to report to the Parliament on its activities and financial areas and which statutory body has failed to meet the obligations it has to the Parliament. Whilst Senator Rae, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, has said that one report for the year ended 30 November 1977 is now before the Parliament, 1 think we will find that the report has been tabled in the House of Representatives but that it has not as yet been tabled in the Senate. I think probably only the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations have just received the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Wheat Board for the year ended 30 June 1 977. For the Parliament to receive a report of that nature dated 30 November 1977 on 22 May 1980 is, in fact, quite meaningless.

This delay should be the concern of every member of Parliament and particularly members of the Executive. I have said over and over again that because of the dominance of the Executive unfortunately this place is becoming nothing much more than a repository for documents- the end of the line for the bureaucratic filing system. The Parliament is being regarded by the bureaucracy as nothing much more than a large filing cupboard. But it is very late in putting its files in the cupboard. The Wheat Board and, I am afraid, some other statutory bodies, have taken advantage of the supremacy of the Executive over the Parliament and they regard their responsibilities to Parliament as a mere exercise of tidying up the desk. It is sad that the Parliament has been reduced to this state.

The members of the Committee- I commend Senator Rae as Chairman of the Committee for the work he has done on this matter- are doing their utmost to bring back a sense of responsibility on the part of statutory bodies- not only the Wheat Board but also all of those other statutory bodies, which have failed to honour their reporting responsibilities to this Parliament. We are trying to improve or to restore the status of Parliament and parliamentary responsibility. I believe that if the Executive is worth its salt, it will consider very closely the implications of this report. When I say ‘the Executive ‘, I refer in particular to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) who, after the Senate had made an expression of opinion on legislation relating to the Wheat Board in this Parliament in November 1979, wrote to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, Senator Rae, on 20 November last. As set out in Senator Rae’s statement which has been incorporated in Hansard, the Minister said:

The Parliament has empowered the Board to carry out important functions. One of these is to prepare and furnish a report for Parliament in the operations and financial accounts ofthe Board. I consider that the delays in preparing and furnishing statements for the years ended 30 November 1977 and 1978 are unacceptable and do not meet the standards of responsibility required by the Parliament. I have now advised the Board to this effect, reminded it of its responsibility and asked the Board to ensure that the two financial statements are furnished for presenting to Parliament in February and March 1980.

It is now May 1980. We have received only one report for the year ending 30 November 1977. We have not received the report for the year ending 30 November 1978. 1 suggest that the Senate should draw this matter, particularly the members of the Executive in the Senate, to the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry to see that much more than a bit of scolding is done in instances of this nature.

page 2652

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Inquiry into Statutory Authorities

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I present the fourth report and transcript of evidence of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and

Government Operations on its inquiry into statutory authorities of the Commonwealth.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– by leaveI move:

This is the fourth report which the Committee has presented under its responsibility from the Senate for the continuing oversight of Commonwealth statutory authorities and similar bodies. As honourable senators will recall, the Committee’s three previous reports identified the authorities, analysed their impact on the Australian economy and recommended the enactment of an annual reports Act to impose improved and uniform accountability standards on authorities.

As a part of our responsibility for the continuing oversight of authorities, we have adopted the practice of investigating authorities’ annual reports which have been delayed in their presentation to the Parliament. In November 1979 the Senate referred 12 of these late annual reports to the Committee. This fourth report consists mainly of the results of our investigations into these late annual reports. The results provided yet more evidence of the need for an annual reports Act along the lines we have recommended. In particular, the problems causing the delays in the presentation of reports could be eased by implementing the Committee’s recommendation in the third report that a time limit of two months be imposed within which the form of the accounts should be approved or disapproved by the Minister for Finance; otherwise the form will be deemed to have been approved for that financial year.

The need for transitional provisions where authorities take over the activities of pre-existing organisations is further emphasised by the conclusions in our fourth report. I would remind honourable senators that one method of preventing difficulties with accounting changes before they occur was recently applied by the Committee when we examined the accounting and audit provisions of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Amendment Bill 1980 to ensure that the implications of the accounting changes were considered before they were imposed on the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission. This is a useful and important procedure which we believe should be used more often.

The fourth report also contains an updated list of authorities which the Committee had undertaken to provide regularly to the Parliament. The authorities are categorised according to function and changes in the functional categories have been made as a result of representations by some authorities. The authorities are also categorised according to the Minister through whom they report to the Parliament. In February 1980 the Committee advertised in the nation-wide Press and sought by direct invitation submissions on our inquiry. We were particularly concerned to obtain evidence on the broader issues of the inquiry relating to the establishment and independence of authorities. The submissions prepared as a result of these invitations are still being received and considered by the Committee. The Committee will soon conduct a series of public hearings based on the written evidence. We then propose to report to the Senate on these issues before the end of 1980.

I conclude, Mr President, by pointing out that our fourth report mentions that the Government has yet to respond to our report on the Advance to the Minister for Finance, even though six months have passed since its presentation on 1 1 October 1979. Senate Estimates Committees A and D in their reports of April 1 980 made further comments on the Advance, and Estimates Committee A joined this Committee in seeking the implementation of the recommendation of our report on the Advance concerning the issue of a public statement on a regular basis on approvals of expenditure from the Advance. I commend the report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2653

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE D

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

-by leave -I table further additional information received by Estimates Committee D. I seek leave to have the additional information incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee ‘s proceedings.

Leave granted.

page 2653

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL RESOURCES

Reference on Aluminium Industry

Motion (by Senator Thomas) agreed to:

That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources: The development of the bauxite, alumina and aluminium industries with particular reference to their requirements for energy, labour, capital and infrastructure.

page 2653

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PASSENGER FARES AND SERVICES TO TASMANIA

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate nominating Senators

Rae and Townley and from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate nominating Senators Grimes and Tate to be members of the Select Committee on Passenger Fares and Services to Tasmania.

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

That the senators nominated in accordance with the resolution of the Senate establishing the Committee be appointed members of the Senate Select Committee on Passenger Fares and Services to Tasmania.

page 2654

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL 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 Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

( 12.55)- I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The effect of this Bill will be to repeal those provisions of Part XVI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 which limit and circumscribe a candidate’s electoral expenditure and which lay down the procedures and penalties relating to the filing of returns by candidates, political organisations, trade unions, and other persons and bodies, except newspapers. All senators will be aware that the existing provisions of Part XVI are unsatisfactory in a number of respects, and have proved to be unworkable. Historically, the outdated provisions contained in Pan XVI derive from provisions which were enacted in the 1 9th century and designed to deal with bribery and corruption then existing in British elections. The reason for many of the provisions that have survived in our Part XVI disappeared with the demise of the electoral system and social conditions of that century. Federal elections since 1924 have been conducted under a system of secret and compulsory voting.

The growth of the modern political party system has meant that the personal electoral expenditure incurred by the candidate is of lesser importance compared with the expenditure by the party machine. One of the consequences of this is that the emphasis of the existing provisions on returns by the candidate himself has become inappropriate. Another consequence is to present candidates with serious problems of compliance. The recent events in Tasmania, in which a general election was followed by a multiplicity of challenges to successful candidates based on the Tasmanian provisions corresponding to Part XVI, make it clear that the Part must be overhauled. In the case of Tasmania, questions were raised whether the challenges would completely paralyse the State Parliament. Clearly this possibility must be avoided in the national Parliament. No control of electoral expenditure at State elections has ever existed in New South Wales or Queensland and the statutory provisions relating to them were repealed in South Australia and Western Australia in 1969 and 1979 respectively. The report by Mr Justice Kay preceding the repeal of the Western Australian provisions concluded:

The provisions for the limiting of electoral expenses serve no useful purpose, they are not supervised nor do most candidates observe Part VI of the Act. The provisions of any Act which are not observed or policed should not remain on the Statute Book’.

Part VI of the State Act contained provisions similar to Part XVI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

Turning to the particular provisions of Part XVI proposed for repeal, section 145 at present sets limits on a candidate’s allowable expenses in Senate elections at $1,000 and in House of Representatives elections at $500. These limits were fixed in 1946 and are clearly out of date. Section 146 places strict limits on the types of expenditure a candidate may incur or authorise. Over the years the methods of electioneering have changed and the Government feels that, subject to the provisions relating to bribery and corruption, a candidate should be free to campaign in whatever way he thinks fit and is otherwise lawful. The limits on kinds of permissible expenditure contained in section 1 46 are therefore to be repealed, and also the related provisions in sections 147 to 150.

The provisions in section 151 relating to returns of candidates’ expenses have perhaps been the most troublesome of all the provisions in Part XVI. They have put candidates in the position of a crisis of conscience, because of their ambiguities and obscurities. For example, the reference in that section to ‘all electoral expenses paid’ leaves uncertain the question whether it refers only to expenses paid by the candidate or extends to include expenses incurred by others in his interest or on his behalf. It is to be appreciated that a candidate may have no means of ascertaining what expenses may have been incurred by others, including the political party to which he belongs. There are other problems relating to the interpretation and operation of the section. For example, how does a candidate determine how much of his telephone expenditure is to be included in his return? The information may be not available, and even if it becomes available, that may happen after the time for lodging the return. Similarly, problems arise under section 152 in respect of returns of electoral expenses by political parties and trade unions. For example, the respective responsibilities of branches and divisions of a political party or a trade union are not at all clear. Insuperable problems of dissection could arise to vex those wishing in good faith to comply with the law.

Mr President, persons should not be placed in a position in which they are uncertain as to what must be done in order to comply with the law. The Government believes that the public interest is served by public disclosure of electoral expenditure. The determination of precisely what expenditure should be disclosed, of the persons upon whom a responsibility to disclose should be cast, and of the appropriate machinery for the administration of those provisions is a matter on which the Government would wish to have the advice of an independent inquiry prior to making any decision. Accordingly, the Government has decided to establish an inquiry into the matter. The proposed terms of reference are:

To inquire into and report on what provisions should be included in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1 9 1 9 to require public disclosure of-

  1. electoral expenditure by, on behalf of, or in the interests of a candidate;
  2. electoral expenditure by, on behalf of, or in the interests of a political party;
  3. other electoral expenditure; and
  4. information relating to the publication of electoral matter in newspapers or by broadcasting or television, including the cost thereof.

In particular, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the report should make recommendations on the following matters:

  1. . The form and content of the disclosure that should be required, and the persons and bodies to be required to make disclosure, bearing in mind among other things the need for requirements in relation to disclosure to be clear and unambiguous.
  2. The period after the close of the poll within which disclosure should be made.
  3. Whether there should be any exemptions from the requirements relating to disclosure; in particular whether there should be an exemptionn of expenditure which does not exceed a specified minimum amount, and, if so, what that amount should be.

For the purpose of the terms of reference, electoral expenditure includes any expenditure which is intended or calculated to affect the result of an election, being expenditure incurred between the issue of the writ for the election and the close of the poll, but does not include monetary donations to a political party or to a trade union.

It will be noted that the terms of reference exclude from electoral expenditure monetary donations to a political party. This Government’s views on this matter are well known. The recent report of the Electoral Act Advisory Committee appointed by the Tasmanian Government also took the view that the names of such donors should not be disclosed. The report said:

In our opinion it derogates from the liberty of the citizen to financially back his desire to support a candidate or a party without the public disclosure which could cause him suffering at the hands of those holding strong opposing views. After all his vote is secret and the fact that he is prepared to back his vote with financial support should not subject him to criticism, loss of employment or business or other serious and unwarranted consequences. In this respect a company or organisation can suffer in the same way as an individual.

It is unlikely that the inquiry will be able to be completed and its report considered before the next election. Having regard to the very real difficulties caused by the outmoded provisions contained in Part XVI and the possibility of a multiplicity of challenges at the forthcoming Federal election, the present Bill has been brought forward. Although, for the reasons I have already stated, the Bill repeals the reporting requirements of candidates, political parties, trade unions and others, the Government feels that no similar reason exists to repeal section 153. The retention of section 153, which requires returns of electoral matter published in newspapers and the continuation of the present practice of broadcasting and television stations disclosing electoral matter which is broadcast or televised, will, pending the results of the inquiry, serve to protect the public interest. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned.

page 2656

ROADS GRANTS 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 Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

(12.56)-I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to provide $628m by way of non-repayable grants to the States and the Northern Territory for the construction and maintenance of roads in 1980-81. This amount represents an 11 per cent increase over the 1979-80 financial year. As honourable senators will be aware, the Commonwealth has had a long-standing involvement in the provision of financial assistance to the States for roads. Most recently, this assistance has been provided under the States Grants (Roads) Act 1977 under which grants to the States totalling $ 1,529m have been appropriated for the three-year period 1977-78 to 1979-80. The Bill before the Senate will enable a continuation of Commonwealth assistance for roads programs.

The Bill will also provide, for the first time, for specific purpose roads assistance to be made available to the Northern Territory on the basis of the same terms and conditions as those to apply to the States. This is in line with the Government’s general policy that Commonwealth specific purpose payments to the Northern Territory should be progressively incorporated in the legislation covering assistance to the States.

The Bill provides for only one year’s appropriation of funds at this stage. However, I should make it clear to honourable senators that this does not in any way foreshadow a departure from the triennial funding arrangements that have applied in the past. The Commonwealth has indicated to the States that funding levels for 1981-82 and 1982-83 will be discussed at the Premiers Conference in June. In the meantime, it is necessary to enact legislation this session to authorise the continuation of payments to the States after 30 June next. The Government is committed to amending this legislation as soon as possible to incorporate decisions on funding levels for 198 1-82 and 1982-83.

Total funds to be appropriated to the States and the Northern Territory for roads in 1 980-81 amount to $628m. This represents an increase of 1 1 per cent over the amounts provided in 1979- 80 and is directed towards at least maintaining the value of the grants at the 1979-80 level in real terms. This is a significant commitment given that, in the coming year, the Government will be again faced with imposing tight restraints on public expenditures in order to contain inflationary pressures. It is evidence of our determination to contribute to the development and maintenance of an effective road network. It is proposed that the total grant for 1 980- 8 1 be allocated among the States and the Northern Territory on the following basis:

This distribution provides for each State and the Northern Territory to receive a uniform 1 1 per cent increase in its grant as compared with the 1979-80 amount.

The proposed allocations of funds among road categories in each State reflects the Commonwealth’s priorities as well as road needs. The bulk of the increases in funding will be directed to national highways and major inter-regional links. In addition, provision will be made to enable the Commonwealth to fund the upgrading of those roads required for the development of particular industries and resources. There will be an allocation of $277.529m for national highways and developmental roads during 1980-81 financial year. This is an increase of $43. 140m over this current financial year. There will therefore be an increase of 1 8.4 per cent for national highways and developmental roads over the 1979-80 financial year.

Under the current legislation the Government has attached a high priority to ensuring that the road funding needs of local government are adequately met. In particular, substantial increases in funding have been provided for local roads categories. The Bill maintains this priority. The legislative arrangements under which assistance is to be provided in 1980-81 will be essentially the same as those set out in the current roads legislation. However, there are some changes to which I should draw the attention of honourable senators.

The number of road categories for which assistance is to be made available has been reduced from eight to four, namely: National roads; rural arterial roads; urban arterial roads; and local roads. The reduction in categories has been achieved firstly by replacing the present three national road categories with a single category. This category will cover the currently declared national highways as well as developmental roads. The new classification of developmental roads will encompass roads that are of national importance from the standpoint of aiding the development of particular industries or particular energy resources or assisting interstate or international trade. Roads currently declared as national commerce roads will be considered for declaration as developmental roads.

As well as the revised arrangements in the national roads area, the rural local and urban local roads categories will be amalgamated. This decision is consistent with the views expressed by all States that the number of Commonwealth road categories should be reduced to a minimum. It will further simplify the administration of the legislation and will also mean that local roads in urban areas will now be eligible for Commonwealth funding for both construction and maintenance. However, the Government will expect the State governments to maintain the existing ratio of expenditure on rural and urban local government roads.

The Minor Traffic Engineering and Road Safety Improvements Program or MITERS category is to be discontinued as a separate category. The MITERS Program, under which allocations totalling some $74m have been provided by the Commonwealth since 1974, has successfully focused attention on the need to ensure that road safety is an integral part of road planning and construction. The reallocation of the available funds to the road construction categories will mean that the State governments will in future be responsible for specific road safety measures as part of their normal works. The current program requirements covering the approval of road programs involving Commonwealth funds and the arrangements covering the operation of joint Commonwealth-State planning committees will continue basically unchanged.

Provision has been made in the Bill for the possible introduction of a new approach to the allocation of local roads funds. I have previously referred to the emphasis that the Government has placed on ensuring that the road funding needs of local government are adequately met and that councils receive an equitable share of available funds. Notwithstanding this, there have been occasions on which the Commonwealth’s efforts in this area have been obscured largely as a result of administrative arrangements for handling Commonwealth grants at the State level. Accordingly, the Commonwealth has proposed to the States that there be a joint examination of the possibility of developing a formula approach appropriate to individual States to cover the distribution of Commonwealth grants to local government authorities.

It is envisaged that such an arrangement might simplify current program procedures and provide councils in those States in which we can develop such an approach, with a greater certainly of future funding levels on which to plan their road programs. It is the Government’s intention that local government be fully consulted in relation to both the examination and implementation of any new approach. I would like to make it clear to the Senate that this need for full and detailed consultation to ensure that an equitable arrangement is developed may mean that this provision of the Bill will not be formally invoked in 1980-81. Rather, it is envisaged that the concept of a formula approach is something which may need to be developed over the course of the triennium.

The legislation will again require the States and the Northern Territory to meet quotas of matching expenditure from their own resources. The quotas are, of course, only minimum funding levels which they are free to exceed. It is proposed that the total quota for 1980-81 be increased by 1 1 per cent to $537. 5m in line with the increase in total grant. However, individual quota levels will be increased by slightly varying percentages with a view to evening out the differences in funding effort which individual States are currently required to make. It is intended that individual quotas should move towards an ‘equal effort’ basis, determined according to a uniform expenditure requirement per registered motor vehicle.

Overall, the arrangements set down in the Bill as the basis for Commonwealth assistance to the States and the Northern Territory are designed to enable the Commonwealth to indicate its priorities and identify the uses to which its funds are applied. In general terms, I believe this approach to be entirely justifiable. The States have, however, expressed concern over time about the extent of Commonwealth involvement in the detailed administration of road programs. Against this background, the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) informed State and Territory Ministers at a recent meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council that the Commonwealth was prepared to review the arrangements under which roads assistance is provided. This review will take place over the next twelve months. Honourable senators may be assured that in this context the Commonwealth Government will take account of the views of the States and the Northern Territory and also of the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations which is also examining this matter.

The Minister for Transport will be asking the State and Northern Territory Ministers to make maximum use of private contractors in the construction of national roads. He will be discussing this matter with them in the near future. It is envisaged that any revision of the arrangements that might result from this review would be incorporated in the future amendment of the legislation to which I have already referred. The explanatory notes that I have circulated describe the main features of the Bill. I would therefore not propose to deal with individual sections in any detail. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12.54 to 2.15 p.m.

page 2658

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 1 May on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– The Opposition has very many and serious reservations about the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1980. So grave are our reservations and our dissatisfaction with some aspects of it that I will, in the course of my contribution to the second reading debate, move an amendment which seeks the withdrawal of the Bill and proposes an alternative way of providing ethnic services. That amendment will be circulated to honourable senators while I am speaking. Failing the success of that second reading amendment, the Opposition will be moving many detailed amendments at the Committee stage. We prefer not to do so because we believe that the whole proposed structure of the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation is wrong.

At the outset I must stress, as I have done often before in this place, that the Federal Opposition believes that there ought to be broadcasting services for ethnic communities. We believe that such services can be provided in a number of ways other than by the setting up of a special corporation. We believe that ethnic radio and in the future ethnic television can be provided to some extent by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. To the extent that it is desired by ethnic communities to have local participation in and control of ethnic broadcasting, we would deem the whole public broadcasting area to be suitable for the development of access ethnic broadcasting.

We cannot support at this stage a proposal for an entire new corporation of an extraordinarily cumbersome construction which will have the sole function of providing ethnic broadcasting and will not be able to provide all sorts of other public interest broadcasting which we believe any new broadcasting structure ought to be looking at. We are particularly concerned that this legislation has been brought in at a time when the first ever major review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission is being undertaken. We are suspicious of the Government’s motives in legislating for an ethnic broadcasting corporation at this time. After all, it is not only our view that the Australian Broadcasting Commission in a reformed and revitalised state could undertake some responsibilities to provide ethnic broadcasting; it is certainly the view of many ethnic communities throughout Australia. It is a view which, at least, should be properly canvassed by the Dix Committee of Review of the ABC. It was the case in earlier years that the ABC provided some ethnic broadcasting services. It was certainly the case of the ill-fated station 3ZZ that the ABC developed a very exciting innovation which allowed community access broadcasting by a number of interest groups including particularly ethnic communities. We think it is entirely wrong of the Government to pre-empt the Dix inquiry with regard to the possibility of the ABC taking on some function of ethnic broadcasting by introducing legislation to set up an entire new corporation.

Similarly related to our concern about the ABC inquiry is the question of the cost of the proposed Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation. We have had no details from the Government to this stage on the cost of setting up a whole new television network to provide ethnic television services. We have sought such information; we have not been able to get it. I believe that we have not got it because the Government has not done adequate cost research in the area. I hope that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) who represents in this chamber the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) will be able to give us some indication on this aspect during the debate. But there has been speculation in the media by the commercial industry and by ABC employees that the cost to get this ethnic broadcasting service off the ground could be $140m. That is roughly the equivalent of what the Fraser Government is prepared to allocate to the Australian Broadcasting Commission to perform all the functions that it has to perform.

It seems to us to be very dubious to propose that this new Corporation which will have, after all, a fairly narrow and specific purpose to meet the needs of a small section of the community which, by the way, has not been adequately consulted should be set up in such a way as will require funds equivalent to the cost of running the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The Opposition has fundamental objections to the legislation before the chamber both in terms of cost, which is yet unknown- predictions are that it will be very extravagant- and in its timing in relation to the ABC inquiry.

We have further objections. When the Labor Government initiated ethnic radio broadcasting in this country it did so according to a principle of ethnic community involvement and consultation with the ethnic community. In setting up 2EA and 3EA and initiating the 3ZZ experiment in Melbourne the Labor Government sought to consult ethnic communities and to give them control over the broadcasting of programs in community languages. There were many difficulties with that innovation. I do not pretend that the innovation was a total success. Certainly what was a success with the ethnic communities was the principle of consultation, involvement and participation.

The part of the legislation before us today which applies to the IMBC is not the result of consultation with a broad spectrum of ethnic communities. The Government will no doubt respond by saying that it has consulted Mr Petro Georgiou or a few other people. But it is certainly not the view of those ethnic communities which have been talking to the Federal Opposition about this matter that their needs and requirements have been adequately investigated by the Government before setting up this Corporation.

It seems to us that, rather than setting out to find a form of ethnic broadcasting service which would meet the needs of ethnic communities as denned by those communities, the Government has set about establishing a corporation which it will be able to use as an instrument of political patronage, as it did in the Special Broadcasting Service, a fact which I think is established beyond a shadow of a doubt. The Government also will be able to have this tame broadcasting corporation set up under its direction at a very convenient time. Mr Fraser wants it to start on 1 October to facilitate the propagation of Fraser ‘s electoral campaign material. That is another very serious objection which the Federal Opposition has to the proposal.

The actual structure of the Corporation as set out in the legislation before us makes no proper provision for ethnic participation. The Federal Opposition was successful in moving amendments to the legislation when it was debated in the House of Representatives. To some extent we have been successful in providing for a degree of representativeness with regard to the ethnic consultative committees which are to be a part of the new corporate structure. Of course, we are not at all satisfied that those modest amendments to which we were able to get Government approval will satisfy our requirement and the requirement of the ethnic community for full participation in such a development.

The legislation does allow for the establishment of consultative committees to advise the Corporation, but we really do not have any reason to believe, judging by the past performance of the SBS, that these advisory committees will have any more effect on what is happening than the advisory committees of the SBS- the two State ethnic broadcasting advisory councils and the National Ethnic Broadcasting Advisory Council.

I anticipate that Government senators will point out that there are differences between this corporate structure and the SBS. Of course there are differences. In fact, the Federal Opposition is very gratified to see them because to some extent in a fairly superficial way the Government has taken account of many of our criticisms of the structure of the SBS. The IMBC has been set up as an independent corporation and has a higher independent status than the SBS had. However, in our view, it has far too many similarities in its structure and its relationships with the ethnic communities to the old SBS. An SBS by any other name carries with it the same problems that existed, problems which were chronicled at length in the interim report on ethnic television by Mr Frank Galbally. 1 will remind honourable senators of some of the criticisms which were made in that report. Page 23 of the report states: . . the SBS has been criticised for alleged incompetence and more particularly for its perceived insensitivity to the needs and interests of ethnic communities. It has been strongly argued that the SBS should not control the permanent service unless:

  1. Its structure is changed to allow greater ethnic input.

    1. The two SEBAC and NEBAC are regarded as being virtually and completely out of touch with ethnic communities.
    2. The legislation is changed to increase its public accountability and reduce the scope of Ministerial intervention.

It might be the case that the legislation has reduced the scope of ministerial intervention. I would agree with that. As the stall 0 the SBS and some of its basic structures are to be taken over and put under the new title of the IMBC, I do not think we can say that the current proposals answer the very serious criticisms made of the SBS by the Galbally report.

One of our major objections to the legislation is the provision that the Corporation be allowed to take sponsorship- commercial advertising. The reasons for our opposition to this provision are numerous. The main one is that it will militate against the Corporation’s serving the needs of ethnic communities in a fair and acrosstheboard way. If the Corporation will have to depend on revenues, if in future years it will be limited in what it can do according to where it can raise revenue, as is commercial television, obviously those communities which form a large enough group to provide an attractive advertising target will be the only communities whose broadcasting needs are served. It may be the case that the advertisers can put together a package for the Greek, Italian or Yugoslav communities, but we have many small ethnic groups, such as the Finns, Hungarians, Poles, Cambodians and Laotians. Those groups have exactly the same problems. They need broadcasting in their own languages as much as the larger groups but they will never be sizable enough to attract advertising packages. Over a period the functions of the Corporation, which is supposed to serve the needs of all ethnic communities, will be narrowed down by the constraints in advertising revenue to broadcasting only to those major groups. That seems to us to be a problem of such fundamental significance that we do not want to proceed with the Corporation in its present form.

Another problem is that the IMBC will not be purely a commercial operation but will also be publicly funded. In other words it is to be a hybrid. This in our view raises many problems. The proposal has certainly been greatly criticised by the commercial television industry. With some justice it says: ‘We have to go out into the market place to look for advertising revenues, which are our sole means of carrying out broadcasting activities, whereas the new Corporation will have government funds to guarantee its activities but will still be able to move in and compete with us for advertising revenue’. That to me is not such a serious argument as the previous one I have put forward against the Corporation’s having the power to take advertising, but it still seems to me to be a practical problem and not a very constructive way to advance the cause of improved broadcasting and diversity in broadcasting to bring in a hybrid organisation which makes neither the public sector nor the private sector happy at the outset and will, undoubtedly, cause all sorts of conflicts and hostilities against the new Corporation if it ever gets off the ground. Of course, we hope that it will not.

By making multicultural television a commercial service we are putting its quality and integrity at risk. As I have said, smaller ethnic groups will lose out to the larger, financially better off, ethnic groups. Ethnic newspapers may lose viability because of the loss of advertising revenue. This will close down what has been until now an important means of communication within ethnic communities. That view has been put forward not only by the Federal Opposition but also by the proprietors of ethnic newspapers. The story of ethnic newspapers in Australia is parallel to the story of newspapers generally in Australia. There was a time when many small independent ethnic newspapers flourished in this country. But as the need to get advertising revenue has increased, as big businessmen have moved into the area, there have been takeovers so that the number of proprietors who actually own and control ethnic newspapers is very small. In the same way, the number of proprietors who control our English language newspapers has become frighteningly small. Even so, it is important that the ethnic newspapers be maintained in a state of economic viability because they are answering a need in the community and providing a service. If the ethnic newspapers lose access to advertising revenue to the more glamorous and exciting medium of ethnic television it will be a loss to the ethnic communities generally.

Another matter of concern to the Opposition and, I believe, to ethnic communities is the appointment of Mr Bruce Gyngell as the Chief Executive Officer of the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation. Mr Gyngell, in his characteristic manner, has made a number of his views available to the public very readily as to what ethnic broadcasting is all about and what he, as executive director of the new Corporation, sees as his role. If the reports about what Mr Gyngell has said on this subject are true, they are enough to strike horror in the hearts of anyone concerned with providing a better television service for the Australian public. I quote briefly from a very long article which appeared in the Australian Financial Review of 28 April this year. It was based on an interview with Mr Bruce Gyngell in which he characteristically expressed his views on ethnic television. It states:

Mr Gyngell said that game shows were popular and had a high participation element. His examples were a possible Tell the Truth in Italian, or What’s My Line? in Yugoslav. The idea was advanced of local ethnically based situation comedies, a type of Greek Rag Trade in Melbourne.

The proposals were greeted with some disappointment among packagers, some of whom thought them unimaginative. In an internal memorandum on the meeting one program packager said the 1MBC-TV, as Gyngell proposed, would have ‘a general old-fashioned feel ‘ about it.

Mr Gyngell left no doubt, however, that he would have total control and the fina! say on all programs. He told the meeting that this had been a condition of his accepting the job from the Government.

I am an autocrat and that’s the way it’s going to be’, he said. “This (the IMBC) is an autocracy.’

Those views are totally repugnant to the ethnic communities, which are looking for some sort of participatory process. They are very worrying to the Federal Opposition, particularly in the light of the recent judgment by the High Court of Australia which put beyond any doubt the question of Mr Gyngell ‘s incompetence to carry out such a job. I understand that many speakers wish to speak to this Bill. I will seek further opportunities in the Committee stage to elaborate further on our reservations about the Bill. The Opposition’s amendment to the second reading motion proposes an alternative and better way, which is more acceptable to the ethnic communities, of providing ethnic broadcasting. I move:

Senator Robertson:

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Senator MacGIBBON:
Queensland

– I have much pleasure in speaking in support of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1980. I confess to having some reservations about Part IIIA, owing to the lack of definition in that part of the Bill. I believe that later on in the debate Senator Townley will move a motion, which will read as follows:

That the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1980 be referred to the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in August, on the proposed establishment, functions and powers of the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation.

At the outset I say that I am not opposed at all to the concept of ethnic broadcasting or ethnic television. Let us be clear on that point. I am opposed to the possibility of the very considerable public funding of a program which may well be more effective in a different format, and which may be more economic if it were managed through a different program. I support unreservedly the electoral promise of the Government to introduce ethnic television during the life of this Parliament, but I am not convinced that this is the only vehicle or the only way in which it can be done. Part IIIA of the Bill deals with the general concept of the Galbally Review of Postarrival Programs and Service to Migrants. The central point raised by Mr Galbally in his migrant report is that the prinicpal disability that the migrant community in this country suffers is an inability to speak English. The positive approach to that is to do all we can to enable them to speak English and, through other educational programs, to allow them to live a satisfactory and above all constructive life as a part of the Australian community. In private conversations I have had with the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) and in discussions before this Bill was presented he reiterated that the central intention of this Bill- although it does have multicultural objectives- is to provide an educational program. I have received that assurance from the Minister. That is explained in proposed section 79D of the Bill.

It is interesting to look at the number of people in this country who do not speak English. I will seek leave to incorporate in Hansard some data collected from the 1 976 census report on the percentage of Australian population over the age of five years who do not speak English, and the percentage of overseas born people over the age of five years who do not speak English. I recognise that the statistics are four years out of date but I make the point quite emphatically that the census figures are the only national figures that provide a data base on which we can make a judgment. Even though they may be wrong to the first decimal point, certainly they are not wrong in orders of magnitude. They show that with an aggregate of 20. 1 per cent of overseas born people in Australia, only 1 .4 per cent of the total population over five years of age cannot speak English. That is the section of the community with which we are very much concerned. I seek leave to incorporate that table in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Senator MacGIBBON:

– I would like also to make it perfectly clear that I am not opposed in any way to social or cultural groupings of migrants in this country. I am very proud of my origins, of where my family came from, and I think that is a fit and proper attribute for members of society to have. Nothing that I am saying should be construed as meaning that I do not wish people to be proud of their origins and maintain the family and national links that they have with their countries of origin. Since 1 945 this country has taken more new settlers into its community than any other country except Israel. By and large it has been a very successful program and one of which we can be proud. Whether the government of the time has been a Labor government or a coalition government, it has never set out to create a stereotype Australian image, let alone an Anglo-Saxon image. Governments of the day have set out to the best of their ability to help migrants live a constructive life in this country. I think the community has changed as a result of that. Anyone who remembers what Australia was like before 1945 could never claim that Australia is the same today as it was then, nearly 40 years ago. Australia has grown and changed, and it has been modified. I would hope that that process continues in the future and that we develop new paths as people who come to live here, of their own volition, develop the community through their interests and aspirations.

I am not a national expert on the migrant groupings in this country, but I do know a little about the communities in my State of Queensland. I am not aware that there is a clamour for legislation in this form as is presented in Part HIA of the Bill. In fact, I would state that there is not majority support in the Queensland community for the Bill as outlined. In fact, I am aware of the possibility of divisiveness between communities. They are aware that there may well be divisiveness created by this management program unless it is well thought out both between and within the migrant groups. It is possible that this problem could be accentuated as a result of national aspirations and national prejudices which would not be conducive to the wellbeing of Australia as a whole. These are the matters to which I need answers before I can support this Bill unreservedly.

I come back to the point I made a few minutes ago about the need for educating migrants who cannot speak English so that they can communicate with the community. The importance of a common language is the most important point raised in the Bill. The greatest cultural asset a nation can have is not the scientists, artists or musicians, but the ability to communicate one with another and, most importantly, live with equality in competition for positions within society. Unless we all speak the same language then the basic business of earning a living is compromised. To me, that is a terribly important point and it is a point that I want to see emphasised and developed in this Bill. Those of us who have lived in or been in Canada and have seen the problems which caused a referendum a couple of days ago on the separation of the French-speaking group from the Englishspeaking group know very well the difficulties that arise in a situation which involves different languages.

I wish to refer to a speech made by Dr Klugman before the House of Representatives Legislative Committee on 1 May. He deals with this point. He begins by saying that he was not born in this country, and that he regards this legislation as a highly divisive proposition. He then refers to the problem of language. I seek leave to have that paragraph incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The paragraph read as follows-

I am probably the only one here who is of so-called ethnic, non-British origin. 1 am a new Australian in the sense that 1 was born overseas. I consider this a highly divisive proposition. It discourages people from learning English. Whatever views one may have about how great other cultures and other languages are, if you tell a kid from a different linguistic background that it does not matter whether he can speak English well et cetera you will make it a lot more difficult for him to try and compete for the Australian cake. The cake is going to be divided mainly amongst people who are able to speak English, pass school examinations and all those things. If you offer people this sort of television then the few people who will watch it will drop further behind Australian society. If they watch it because they cannot watch other sorts of television then this is the result of a con job by what I call professional new Australians, by which I mean people who are professionally new Australians, who get their income from dividing the community and implying that unless you speak whatever language is appropriate you are somehow dropping behind.

Senator MacGIBBON:

– I stress the importance of language, because language guarantees in a way no other social thing can the equality of opportunity within the country. I have some criticisms of the lack of definition of the priorities, in a general sense, of how this scheme will be managed. In the first place we are told that it will run for 35 hours a week in two State capitals. I believe Mr Galbally identified in excess of 100 ethnic groups in the Australian community. That works out at 2 1 minutes per group, before time for advertising is taken out of the program. I do not really know how agreement can be reached between 100 different groups as to how the ratios can be defined.

For the information of honourable senators I point out the changes that have occurred in the numbers of settlers who have arrived in this country during the postwar period. I wish to quote from figures taken by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in December 1978. Between 1959 and 1978, 77.2 per cent of migrants to this country came from Europe, whereas in 1978 there was a total of 38.3 per cent. The fraction is almost one half. In contradistinction, the intake from Asia rose from 9.8 percent between 1959 and 1978 to 31.8 per cent in 1978. That migration, coupled with migration from Oceania, has increased from 14.2 per cent to 49 per cent of the total intake. I believe that pattern will continue into the future. In other words, we have a changing migration inflow into this country.

The second management priority that I am concerned about is the treatment of the Aboriginal community. It is the minority most discriminated against in Australia. I do not see that this Bill in any way provides anything that is of benefit to the Aboriginal community. It is not without irony that the Minister responsible for the Bill in the Senate is Senator Chaney, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The third point I make in relation to the priorities deals with the provision of basic services to country areas. Country areas do not have four channels of television as do Melbourne and Sydney. Indeed, in my State of Queensland, it is of considerable concern that up the coast from Brisbane it is very difficult or impossible to receive sporting broadcasts of cricket test matches or the Davis Cup. Over the ranges there are large areas that do not have any television reception at all. Surely our first priority as a national Parliament is to see that there is a distribution of basic services before we start moving into providing other expensive services. I have reservations about some of the details of the Bill but I do not propose to go through them. I wish to speak briefly on the matter because I know other honourable senators wish to speak on this Bill. I support the Bill, except for some minor problems in respect of Part IIIA. I am not opposed at all to ethnic broadcasting and television. My concern is to see that objectives of this Bill are attained in the most satisfactory way and at least cost to the Australian community.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-I wish to speak very briefly, as did Senator MacGibbon, to the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill. First of all, I want to take up a couple of points which the honourable senator made. Perhaps I did not comprehend them as well as I should have. He dealt with the problem of ethnic communities in a multicultural society, as we have been described, and he particularly raised the notion of the desirability of ethnic communities being encouraged to speak one language, namely, English.

Senator Georges:

– Only English.

Senator BUTTON:

-As Senator Georges interjects with his usual perception, ‘only English’. I think that is a legitimate point, albeit a rather neanderthal one, if I can use that word. But it is one which is constantly discussed. A point with which I personally do not agree, for some of the reasons which Senator MacGibbon adverted to, is the very real importance for the Australian community to have an appreciation of the desirability of bilingualism and multiculturalism. It is enriching for a society to have those attributes and in our society I think we are in danger of lacking them because of our geographical position and our inability as a society to take up the challenge of neighbouring countries and cultures in the way in which I think perhaps we ought to. I am afraid that I do not agree with Senator MacGibbon on that but I do agree with him about the areas of ethnicity, if I can use that word, which the legislation and the proposed Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation will not cover in terms of the provision of programs. Firstly, the honourable senator adverted to Aboriginals. I agree with his comments about them. Secondly, he adverted to country people and to the very obvious and serious disadvantages which country viewers have in terms of the provision of broadcasting services. I know that Senator MacGibbon will support this Bill but, to summarise his qualifications about it, they were in terms of priority on the delivery of services. I agree with his observations about that.

The Fraser Government has been thrashing around in desperation since 1975 trying to find some cure-all for the problems in ethnic communities and to offer some tempting bait electorally to ethnic communities. There are a number of reasons why it has failed and again the reasons are demonstrated in this Bill. Really, there has been a desperate obsession on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) about this. I notice that this legislation is put in terms of honouring promises, as if it were something that the Fraser Government suddenly thought was important and significant. Of course, in every other area of debate which we have in this Parliament, the cherubic smile on Senator Messner ‘s face clearly indicates he knows full well, the question which always comes up is the incapacity of the Fraser Government to honour its promises. Again, this sort of obsessive priority of the Prime Minister is demonstrated in this legislation which is supposed to be an honouring of a promise to ethnic communities. The promise was made without much forethought in the course of the 1977 election campaign. The Government has got into difficulties in respect of all these promises. The Special Broadcasting Service was one of the most monumental disasters one can imagine for the reasons which we pointed out over two years ago. It has been disbanded. That was the first branch of honouring the promises and this, of course, is the second. It is quite extraordinary for a government which claims to pride itself on two things, firstly, honouring promises and, secondly, being very careful about the disposition of government financial resources, to bring up this proposal by way of allegedly honouring a promise. It is a badly costed- indeed it is an uncosted proposal- which might be an enormously expensive development. The Government has gone into it with its eyes closed apparently in terms of costing.

I am concerned about one or two other matters relating to this legislation. The Government which for some very obvious reasons was anxious to get rid of Mr Bruce Gyngell from the chairmanship of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has now inflicted him on the ethnic communities. Senator MacGibbon might well laugh, but he knows this is true. There have been desperate shufflings of unwanted personneldarlings of the Fraser Government originally but now coming home to roost, as it were. The ethnic communities have been inflicted with Mr Gyngell. I do not have a copy of the Australian Financial Review article to which my colleague, Senator Ryan, referred but I do recall Mr Gyngell saying upon his appointment to this position that the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation would be an autocracy because he was an autocrat and that is the way he would run it. That is the Government’s problem in relation to ethnic communities in everything which it does.

The problem can be simply identified in this way: The Fraser Government, for sort of patrician reasons which probably stem from the western district of Victoria, regards ethnic communities as groups of Australian citizens that are not entitled to do their own thing as other Australians are but must have this, as I say, patrician structure inflicted upon them by the Government. It was never more apparent than with the Special Broadcasting Service. It is again apparent in relation to the IMBC- that is to say: ‘Sure, we are going to do something for you people but my God, we will control what you have and what you say about what is on those programs. You will not do that yourself. The Government’s approach has always been one of saying to the commercial television and radio interests in Australia: ‘Do as you like. We talk about selfregulation for you people but insofar as ethniccommunities are concerned there will be no selfregulation; there will be government regulation ‘-in the case of the SBS very direct through the Minister and in the case of the IMBC through the self-confessed autocrat at the Government’s disposal as a result of his failures elsewhere. That is the real problem which this Government has and it is one of the reasons for the opposition which we have to the whole of the concept.

The other thing which is extraordinary about setting up the IMBC by this legislation is the number of hares, as it were, that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) has set going in the broadcasting policy. Mr Staley is something of a sort of closet Maoist. He believes in letting 100 flowers bloom in broadcasting policy. It is very difficult to sort out which flower he is cultivating at any one period. In the last few months he has let go a number of flowers to which he has clearly referred, and I want to refer to some of them. There is the inquiry into the role of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the continued debate about the Government’s attitude to the question of a satellite. Mr Staley has suggested the possibility of cable television in Australia. There is the IMBC which is covered by this legislation, and the possibility of new networking arrangements in relation to commercial broadcasting, and particularly commercial television. The affable, gullible and talkative Minister for Post and Telecommunications has launched a number of other things upon the Australian community without any apparent understanding of them and the Australian community is totally bemused.

One must ask the question: Where does the IMBC fit into all of this? It does not fit in because this monstrous thing, in terms of cost, will act to the detriment of the total public expenditure budget on broadcasting. We are to spend up to $140m on an IMBC program in order to satisfy ethnic communities, with a big launch in October. I suppose that under this Government’s aegis there will be a few films like that dreadful Nino Culotta film. There will be a vast launch, with great expense being incurred, all to the detriment of public expenditure on the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which this Government has run down rather than strengthened. All this will be to the detriment of the inquiries that are being conducted in relation not only to the ABC but also to cable television and so on. It is another example of total incoherence in broadcasting as a result of the Minister’s capacity to approach every problem with an open mouth rather than an open mind. This is the very real difficulty I believe this legislation will encounter, and that is why it contains a sunset clause.

Senator Ryan:

-They do not believe in it themselves.

Senator BUTTON:

-They do not believe in it themselves. It will tide the Government over the next election, and then there will be a third version of the monster which is designed to capture ethnic votes in the Australian community- or it is the fourth version? There are very real criticisms to be made, firstly, on the grounds of its relationship with broadcasting policy, which is a mess under the Fraser Government; secondly, on the grounds of its costing- it is extraordinary for the Fraser Government to launch this and Casey University on the unsuspecting Australian community without any clear costings of either venture; and thirdly, on the grounds of its indication of the view the Fraser Government has of ethnic communities, namely, as some sort of second class citizens who will have this patrician broadcasting structure imposed on them. Senator Chaney shakes his head. Being a man of good will, he does not want to think that his great leader would do a thing like that. However, that is what ethnic communities think about these things, and they are very concerned about them. Our indigenous ethnic from Croatia or wherever it is will interject.

Senator Lajovic:

– Learn your geography, then talk about different nationalities.

Senator BUTTON:

– I appreciate the interjection about my geography. It has always been bad. The point I am making is one Dr Klugman frequently makes in the Labor Party. He says: ‘I am the only ethnic in the room and therefore I am entitled to speak with 1 ,000 voices on behalf of ethnic communities’. That is a view in which I do not concur. On the grounds of the Government’s patrician approach, we also oppose the Bill. Of course, a venture such as this could embrace many of the things Senator MacGibbon talked about. We would argue very much that the Australian Broadcasting Commission needs a second network throughout Australia. It needs a second network which will service not only ethnic communities but also a great variety of other communities in this country, and that that ought to be a priority a long way ahead of this IMBC election stunt. That ought to be a very genuine priority in terms of the Australian culture generally and in terms of service to the citizens of Australia. It is for that reason that on behalf of the Opposition Senator Ryan moved the amendment in relation to the sorts of functions a public broadcasting authority could achieve if this amount of money is to be spent on such an authority. As the amendment states, the authority could be charged with a number of responsibilities in terms of innovating new forms of programming, fostering Australian national and cultural identity, including ethnic communities and providing an access element which would allow much greater participation in its workings. That could be done without detriment to the funding of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Senator MacGibbon made one other point which I wish to follow up by saying how I think the problem could be overcome. He referred to the vast number of ethnic communities, I think, in Brisbane.

Senator MacGibbon:

– No, in Australia.

Senator BUTTON:

– In Australia. What he was really saying was that, because of the vast number of communities, if we are to be equitable about it all they should get so much a week each.

Senator Mulvihill:

– People like the Portuguese, who are ethnically small.

Senator BUTTON:

– A very small number each. Because the Government adopts this patrician approach to legislation, that sort of question becomes a headache for people on the Government side to work out. It has been done immensely successfully in this country where we have allowed ethnic communities to do it themselves. The best example is in South Australia, where Ethnic Broadcasting Incorporated has been immensely successful, as Senator Lajovic knows. The ethnic communities got together and agreed on the slice of the cake they should each have in relation to the public broadcasting station 5UV in Adelaide. It has been a great success. I am sure that Senator Young, being a diligent South Australian, knows that too.

Senator Young:

– It has been a very effective experiment.

Senator BUTTON:

-That is right. I believe that the same solutions are being worked out fairly successfully in Brisbane. That is the way it could have been done, and it emphasises the crucial point that if we allow them to do it themselves, as Australians are allowed to do it themselves, and treat them in exactly the same way and let them work it out, then we will arrive at a satisfactory solution rather than imposing something on them. That is something which is profoundly to be encouraged and which has been obviously and very glaringly omitted from this legislation. So there are constructive approaches to this matter which the Government has chosen not to adopt.

I make one other point about this legislation. With the imposition of advertising on the IMBC, a number of problems will be created which will compound the difficulties Senator MacGibbon pointed to. It is, of course, difficult to determine how much to spend on national broadcasting services, how it is to be divided up, and so on. It is an attractive notion to think that if we can have advertising then the Government does not have to worry much about it because it is not public sector expenditure. AH sorts of difficulties are inherent in that method of funding in an organisation such as the IMBC, difficulties which I think flow through into the operations of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I concur totally with the remarks made by Senator Ryan on this matter. For the reasons we have expressed, we oppose the Bill.

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

-At the outset I should say that I too support some of the mechanical parts of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1 980. Certain parts prior to clause 18 provide for translators and the like, but what we are really talking about today is a Bill in which the Government is trying to set up the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation. Perhaps I should go back to the election words that were used on 2 1 November 1977 by Mr Fraser.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Order! Senator Townley is addressing the Bill. There is a little too much audible conversation.

Senator Georges:

– If he spoke louder there would be no difficulty.

Senator TOWNLEY:

– That is very good of you, Mr Acting Deputy President. For the benefit of Senator Georges and other deaf people in the chamber, I will read from the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) of 21 November 1977.

Senator Georges:

– Incorporate it.

Senator TOWNLEY:

– No, I will read it. I can read. It states:

The Government will also establish an ethnic television service initially in Sydney or Melbourne. If the service proves successful it will be extended to other States.

Honourable senators will see that nowhere in that quotation is mentioned how the ethnic television will be supplied to the Australian community. The Bill that honourable senators have before them is a complex one. Senator MacGibbon has given his views very well. The Bill in some of its parts sets up a corporation that will cost, I am informed, if it spreads like Topsy across the whole nation, about $10Om and that is at a time when I believe we should continue to constrain costs. That is the message I get as I go around Tasmania and Australia. The people of Australia want us to keep expenditure and, therefore, inflation under control. But that is not, perhaps, the main reason 1 am against the establishment of the IMBC at this stage. It is because I have had advice that there are many other and better ways of implementing this plan. For instance, as an electronic engineer, I know quite well that it is very easy to transmit several different languages on AM radio frequencies allocated for that purpose within any area that is receiving a program in English which is transmitted by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. What is wrong with that matter being looked at?

I know that the technology- I have read information on this- is just about finalised, by which three sub-scripts can be transmitted with any program, one of which can be selected by people at home, or if there is a Greek person married to an Italian, with a little more effort they could have both sub-scripts. Also with that new technology, there is a refinement in the manner which I mentioned a moment ago about the radio. It is possible to transmit, I believe, up to seven languages over the television frequency band, and then people in their homes may select the band that corresponds to the language that they want to hear. That can be done, obviously, at much less expense than setting up a new corporation that will be only in Melbourne or in Sydney to start with. These are things that I am saying could be done nationwide at one stage. It illustrates what I have said before in this House that rushed legislation is bad legislation. This Bill has been rushed. It came into the other House a couple of weeks ago. Since then 1 have had an opportunity to look at the finer detail of it, and I have been advised of these new techniques that have just been perfected in other areas of the world.

In a moment or two I will say a few words about the philosophy of creating a special migrant broadcasting system, whether it be radio or television. I have said on occasions that I am against ethnic radio, television and pensions. Honourable senators may ask how I can be against ethnic pensions. I believe that people who come to Australia should be prepared to learn English if they want to participate in the country. If they want a pension I believe they should stay in Australia. I believe we should not be exporting pensions overseas. That is what I call an ethnic pension. I intend to move at the appropriate time that this matter be referred to a committee because, in technical terms or in radio terms, I suppose honourable senators could say that the philosophy needs fine tuning.

At the appropriate time I intend to move- I am sure you are very interested in this, Mr Acting Deputy President, because you are Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts- that the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1980 be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in August on the proposed establishment, functions and powers of the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation. I will continue in a few moments.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– The Australian Democrats are strongly attracted to Senator Townley ‘s amendment. This new organisation is one of those many things that look fine at first glance; things such as the domestic satellite, the new and permanent Parliament House, a rocket to the moon. There are all sorts of things if only one is prepared to throw money at them. While we do not disagree at all with the principle of a better media service to people of non-English speaking origin in this country, we would like to consider very carefully whether this matter has been sufficiently thought through. I know the Australian Democrats’ impression at this stage is that the matter has not been sufficiently well thought through.

The concepts ought to be tested. What is the best way of testing matters which we have available to us in this place? The answer is to refer them to our own committee which can call evidence and which can look at all the aspects involved. There is nothing, certainly in the second reading speech, to indicate to me that anybody who knows anything about the cost of television production or technology has had anything much to do with this Bill so far. It is a fact that television programs cost a lot of money. I have had some professional involvement with television in the past. I was concerned in the Australian Broadcasting Commission with documentaries and outside broadcasts for quite a while, and I know better than most people that quality and cost of television productions are very closely associated. Radio and television are completely different ballgames

It is no good saying that because there is an organisation like this in radio and it is functioning well- and of course it is- that we will immediately set up a television organisation, that it is going to be as easy and that we will get through. Figures are being thrown around nowsomething like $ 130m a year- which amounts to a large sum of money. I would go so far as to say that even with that there is now way we will turn out a satisfactory television service in the categories which are described in this Bill. There is no way in the world of finding the expert production staff without going overseas and buying them very expensively, and good production staff for television are in short supply. We are setting up virtually- if you want this to do the job which it is supposed to do- another ABC.

Senator Townley:

– Hear, hear!

Senator MASON:

– Indeed, Senator. Let us look at the functions of the Bill as set down.

Senator Puplick:

– There is a lot of self interest in them.

Senator MASON:

– Do you want to make a point, Senator?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They did a lot of the pioneering work, assisting in ethnic programs.

Senator MASON:

-Yes, I noticed that. There are all sorts of things which the ABC does not even do involved in the cost of this. I make the point that at this stage- I think it is worth making- there is no reason why there should be a long delay in initiation of the service simply because the concepts are being tested. Surely, it is unreasonable to expect a project to go ahead without its concepts being thoroughly tested. We say: Why not support the Townley amendment and let us have a good look at it? For that same reason, we are a little disenchanted with the Labor amendment because it does not make that provision; it merely says that there will be some other organisation which is similar but which will somehow be vaguely different. With respect to the Labor Party, we feel that is not really what is required at this stage. Proposed new section 79D (i) of the Bill states:

  1. . The functions of the corporation are:

    1. To provide multicultural and multilingual broadcasting and television services that-
    1. appeal to, entertain and inform and are of educational value to the Australian community as a whole and its component ethnic communities; and
    2. foster understanding and appreciation of the diverse cultures within Australia . . .

I would say that they would be worthy motives for an organisation which already exists and which is called the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I cannot see why the Australian Broadcasting Commission should be, by inference, accused of not doing this work. If it does not do it, it can be caused to do it. Even if we were to provide for a separate section of the ABC to do this sort of work, at least it would have access to the expertise, the production facilities and the many other things which the ABC has and which would not be provided as easily by a completely different sort of organisation.

We feel that the question of cost is basic. Again I make the point that, unless we have very large sums for budgeting, a very good staff and a very good think tank ideas section, the much vaunted service will turn out over a period, despite the best will in the world and the best effort on the part of the staff, to be little more than a repository for government and other handouts, because that is the only sort of material that it will be able to handle. It will not be able to go out and do investigative reporting and it will not be able to go out and find the real facts on anything because it costs a tremendous amount of money to do that and, without that money, we would not get anything done. The ABC has learned that lesson the hard way, as have the commercial stations. We have had very good current affairs and documentary programs in this country in recent years only because money has been put into them in enormous quantities. That is the only way of doing it. There is no short cut. Inspiration, dedication or whatever you like does not replace that.

Senator Townley made the point that new technologies of great interest will be becoming available soon. He knows more about that than I do, being an engineer in the field. However, it is a fact that technology is in the pipeline which in time may permit the ABC to have cable lines or charge lines which would make it possible for a person who speaks Italian, German, Croatian or any other language well or who understands things more comfortably in one of those languages to take a translation that went out with the ABC picture. I would say that those people would welcome the idea of having general material of the high quality of the ABC provided to them rather than the idea of having material which is produced on a very low budget and which, honestly, could not be anything other than bad, presented to them through this proposed organisation.

They are some of the problems involved. I am not saying that because of that we should not have this organisation. Indeed, it might be presenting material in some form by the end of this year, as the Government intends. But let us establish it in a practical and reasonable way. It seems to be the feeling in this country that we have a decade of austerity ahead of us and yet almost every week the Government brings up something new on which it wants to spend large sums of money. I think the community is getting a little fed up, and rightly so, with the attitude of mind that it is okay for the community to be austere but the Government does not have to be, that it can take all the money it wants and put it into a variety of high flying projects which have not been thought through carefully, and the community has to bear the cost.

It would be bad enough for that to happen if this were to be a success, but I cannot believe that sufficient money will come to it for it to be successful. The Government recognises that. How do I know that the Government recognises it? I know because it has said that it wants the Corporation to be able to attract advertising to help to meet the cost. Will that be the answer? I do not believe that it will. After all, advertising revenue and other things do not come out of a bottomless barrel. There is a limitation. In fact, if we look at the newspapers and the results of recent surveys, we will see that there has been a downturn in the amount of advertising available to the electronic media. That is already causing concern. The answer to solving problems here is not to introduce more electronic media. That will only exacerbate the problem.

It is a fact that the editors of ethnic newspapers have been protesting against this provision for advertising on future ethnic broadcasting because, they say, it will attract advertising from their newspapers and, as a result, their newspapers will become non-viable. Some of them are struggling now.

Senator MacGibbon:

– That may be self-interest.

Senator MASON:

– I think it is self-interest, but not entirely so. After all, these people are in business running ethnic newspapers. They want to keep running them if they can. They do not want to be forced out of business by unfair government competition with them on advertising. I cannot blame them from that point of view.

Senator Mulvihill:

– They did a lot of pioneering work in assisting with ethnic problems. They gathered causes together long before this.

Senator MASON:

– Indeed, Senator Mulvihill has said, these newspapers have done a tremendous job in that way. It seems silly that we should be establishing an unwieldy organisation which will probably be government subsidised to the extent that advertising salesmen and so on can be employed and can literally drive these people out of business. I am not convinced that this new proposal will be as useful to the ethnic communities as their newspapers have been. I think that that is something which has to be taken into account. The ethnic market is limited in size and the amount of advertising which companies are willing to direct to it is also limited. It is a fact that, probably for a variety of reasons, the advertising market might be attracted to television. Television always tends to be preferred over the written media, and we could get problems in that regard.

For those reasons, I think that this matter should be thought through much more carefully. I believe that all of these thoughts could be brought up before the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. I think it is a most important reference for the Committee. It is something which I think is urgent. The Government wants it quickly. Therefore I see no reason why it should not be provided quickly. The information is there. Evidence could be taken from all the persons I have mentioned and the viability or otherwise of going about this job in the way in which it is proposed could be studied carefully.

The final point I want to make is about the concern among the ethnic community councils in Australia- I have consulted them- about the way in which this organisation is controlled. They have experience of various other instrumentalities. I spoke only a couple of weeks ago about the lack of any sort of ethnic representation on the Australian Bicentennial Authority. The ethnic councils are worried about this matter from that point of view. I think that is worth putting on record. They think that this Corporation has the potential to provide a valuable service, provided it has proper representation and input from people actively involved in a wide range of ethnic communities and from people representing all political viewpoints. I think that is most important. We must not create something which will be divisive. If we turn out something bad, something which is not properly representative or something which will not be able to do its job properly, we will probably be creating a monster which will do more harm than good. The Australian Democrats have strong reservations about the Opposition’s amendment. We feel that it really does not come to the point that we feel is so important. We feel that this matter needs further thinking. For that reason, we strongly support Senator Townley ‘s proposed amendment.

Senator LAJOVIC:
New South Wales

– In speaking to the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill, I indicate firstly my strong support for the Bill. I compliment the Government for indicating in a practical way its wish to help migrants to become good Australians and to integrate properly. I oppose the Opposition’s amendment because it changes the name of the new corporation and does nothing else. I oppose Senator Townley’s proposed amendment because I feel that the Bill has been discussed and looked into enough to be passed by the Senate.

There are three major points on which opposition to this Bill has come. I refer to an article in the Daily Telegraph of 15 May 1980, which states:

Can Australia afford ethnic television? Indeed, do we even need it?

That is the first point. The second point is this comment in that article:

Surely we have a duty to help them -

Meaning migrants- become an integrated part of the community . . .

The article states that the newspaper believes that this will have a divisive effect. The third point is this comment:

Estimates of the cost of this extravagance vary, though indications are that taxpayers will be expected to dip into their pockets to the tune of some $140m to get the show on the road.

I propose to deal with this matter point by point. Firstly, I refer to the need for a service. I do not want to call it ethnic television or ethnic broadcasting, because I believe that the word ‘ethnic’ is a misnomer. I want to talk about multilingual radio broadcasting and multlingual ethnic television. In 1974 Mr Bernard Freedman, chairman of a sub-committee in a paper presented to the Public Radio Broadcasting Conference said: . . the sub-committee has come to the conclusion that, The only way in which ethnic groups could expect to have a radio voice would be through the establishment of broadcasting stations devoted solely to ethnic broadcasting.

That was said in 1974 before the socialists introduced their first ethnic radio station. On 23 June 1975 an article published in the Melbourne Herald stated:

The chairman of the Ethnic Radio Experiment Committee, Mr James Bayutti, said today he would like to see the station run on a commercial basis.

The same article, in relation to Dr Cass, stated:

Dr Cass said he thought the main idea of the ethnic station was to provide information for migrants . . .

There is a good case for a station that does nothing but broadcast commercials, but I would want it run by the Government’, he said.

If the commercial interests are getting some benefit from the station then there is no reason why they should not pay something’.

Dr Cass said that in 1975. In 1978 Leonor Check wrote an essay entitled ‘Ethnic Radio: Useful Role or Waste of Resources’ which appeared in Australian Social Welfare dated November 1978. She stated: . . programs and in the planning of their content are positive steps to ensure that programs provides information necessary for the satisfactory settlement of ethnic people in Australia and that ethnic broadcasting is a service of important value to them.

On 30 April 1979 La Fiamma, the Italian newspaper, speaking about ethnic television, stated:

The initial program has shown the full potential of ethnic television, which has finally become a reality thanks to the ‘pull’ of the Galbally Report.

On 2 May 1979 an article appearing in the Hellenic Herald stated: . . after the ‘crushing failure’ of ethnic radio the Government is ‘ bound ‘ to put ethnic television on a commercial basis as the only way to make it ‘lively and interesting’.

Further in the article it was stated:

Supporting ‘commercial’ ethnic television, the paper argues that ‘only through free competition will it be possible to continually improve the station’s programs ‘.

I fully agree with what the editors of ethnic newspapers have said about ethnic television programs. In their articles they never question the need for an ethnic television station. They question the advertising on those programs. I must pay a tribute to all those ethnic newspapers which have provided a tremendous service to the migrant communities since 1951 and 1952. I firmly believe that ethnic television and radio or multilingual radio and broadcasting will be complementing the ethnic newspapers. They need each other. That is the only way in which people of different communities and with different standards of education can mix in the different social structures of this country. Therefore, they need not only one or two forms but all three forms of the media.

I was a bit surprised when I heard the opposition to ethnic television by the commercial stations. I wonder why they have never taken up the idea and why they have not broadcast multilingual programs. Nobody prohibits them from doing so. How many commercial radio stations in Australia are broadcasting bilingual or multilingual programs? As far as I know there is only one.

Senator Mulvihill:

– It is one of the rare ones with newspaper interest.

Senator LAJOVIC:

-As Senator Mulvihill says, there was one, and it has stopped broadcasting. Why are the commercial stations now complaining about something which they could have done quite freely and which would have been to their benefit? Only after 25 years have they woken up to the fact that there is a market among migrants. They now realise that they have to sell their products to the non-English speaking or bilingual population. Let us look at the aims and functions of the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation as proposed. Proposed section 79D states:

  1. 1 ) The functions of the Corporation are-

    1. to provide multicultural and multilingual-

Which term I prefer-

Broadcasting and television services that-

appeal to. entertain, inform and are of educational value to the Australian community as a whole and its component ethnic communities; and-

I think this is the much more important and necessary function for our Australian society-

  1. foster understanding and appreciation of the diverse cultures within Australia.

I believe that one of the main functions of multilingual radio and television is to inform all people who have no knowledge of the diverse cultures of those people who today form 20 per cent of the Australian population. I believe that old Australians, and I call them old Australians because I call myself a new Australian, although I have been here for 30 years, would benefit tremendously if they found out what we continentals- or wherever we come from- think about, how we act, how we react, how we talk and what are our customs and cultures.

The second point which has been mentioned frequently is that ethnic television and broadcasting is divisive. I point out that its effect is just to the contrary. Let us imagine a woman with a small family who is not of Anglo-Saxon origin- I say emphatically that she is not from Germany, Holland or Sweden but from a country with another group of languages- who is at home 24 hours a day looking after her children. She has no contact with Australian society as such. She cannot afford the time to read the newspaper printed in her own language. The only way she can learn about or discover our way of life, our system, how we live and how we think is if she gets the courage to go out from her house into the community and fully participate in the Australian community. At the moment she is closed in and a division exists. Only a multilingual broadcasting and television service will break that isolation. People ask: Why does she not learn English? I would like to know how many of those people, who are so critical of migrants who do not speak English, speak another language? How often have they tried to learn another language and how well have they succeeded if they have learnt it? Sometimes I am amazed that when I ask people of high intellectual ability and academic qualifications what languages they speak I get a dead blank stare. Everybody wants all the migrants, as soon as they land in this country, to be perfect linguists, as Senator Button knows. He is one of the few honourable senators who speaks another language, and I must compliment him on that. It is very hard to learn a foreign language unless one is really interested in it.

Senator Townley:

– You’ve done pretty well.

Senator LAJOVIC:

-I thank the honourable senator. I feel that ethnic television would be able to break the fear of those people who are not able to learn English in classes or anywhere else. They would be able to learn it in their homes because the English language would be explained to them in their own language, not in English. It is absurd that the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which has experts on all kinds of things who feel they know all, is still transmitting programs on how to learn English at 6.30 in the morning. I have been battling to change that for the last 25 years but it is as if I was talking to the wall. The English lessons are still broadcast at 6.30 in the morning.

Senator Button:

– Does that not mean there is an assumption that migrants should get up early? That is the view, is it not?

Senator LAJOVIC:

-That is quite right, Senator Button. We all have to get up at 6.30 a.m. and learn English. How would one learn Mandarin at 6 o’clock in the morning, every morning. The announcer on the radio would talk in Mandarin and the person listening would not have a clue what he was saying. He might be saying nice things about the listeners but no one would know what he was talking about. That is the position today. How can one expect the migrants to learn English if so-called experts do not know how to tackle the problems?

I come to the question of costs. A figure of $ 140m was quoted. I do not have much speaking time but I would like to say that the figures in the estimates, which were prepared in greater detail, total approximately $29m for the first year.

Senator Ryan:

– What is that for? What about the Commission? That’s just for the program.

Senator LAJOVIC:

-If Senator Ryan will listen I will explain nicely to her and I will try to speak in English which even she can understand. The establishment costs were $2.3m for 1979-80. The establishment and operating costs for 1980-81 were $24.8m. The on-going radio costs were $3.2m and the on-going administration costs were $lm. That is a total of approximately $29m.

Senator Ryan:

– Where’s television?

Senator Button:

– How much for Mr Gyngell’s out-of-pocket expenses?

Senator LAJOVIC:

- Mr Deputy President, I would like to answer interjections but I do not have the time. I would like to say that $5. 8m of the figure of $29m is for one-time establishment capital costs. In future years it is not anticipated that total annual appropriations will increase considerably. Capital costs will be less. It all depends on how many hours the televison station will transmit. At the moment it is 35 hours a week. That is proposed to be the position for the first two years so that, as is provided in the Bill, the whole service can be reviewed and checked. My last point concerns what the socialists are saying. I would like to quote what Dr Cass said in the other place. I quote from page 2739 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 14 May 1980:

There is no point in having situation comedies for just Greek, Italian or whatever language.

That is what he said. Further on he said:

I see no reason why such programs have to be provided in a foreign language … Of course, the chances of the very small specific interest groups in the community- in other words, the small ethnic communities- of ever getting a program shown in prime television time are minimal.

At page 2747 of the House of Representatives Hansard he said:

In other words, it is time that our sort of patronising approach to such groups was forgotten forever.

Let me take the last point about patronising groups. On 22 May 1975, when radio station 2EA was established by the socialist government, Mr Grassby said this:

It is immaterial who gets the licence. I have already set up advisory boards of the mayors, of the affected municipalities to watch over the project.

Senator Ryan and Senator Button mentioned that only the major groups will have programs and the small groups will not be catered for. When the Australian Labor Party instituted its ethnic radio it catered only for the major groups. In June 1975 Mr Bayutti, the Chairman of the Ethnic Radio Experiment Committee, said that ethnic radio was and would continue to be totally non-political as well as non-controversial. What Mr Bayutti then said about what the Labor Party has said is interesting. He said, ‘We do not want to see this Corporation established. It will be manipulated for political reasons’. Since the two full-time consultants were answerable to Mr Grassby, and Mr Bayutti expressed considerable concern that the Committee might be a rubber stamp or a toothless tiger. Mr Bayutti was appointed by Mr Grassby. Let us look at what was said by Mr Grassby in 1975 regarding the then Government’s free hand to the ethnic groups. The Department of the Media, under Dr Moss Cass, kept a controlling finger on the two stations and their staff. That is where the control was. Both licences were endorsed to give the Minister for the Media power to direct the content of the programs should he wish to do so. Referring to appointments, Mr Wran- everybody knows Mr Wran, a very bipartisan man- said:

Ofcourse, any important office will be identifiable with the policies and philosophy of the Government of the day.

We have heard all the rubbish of the Labor Party about how it will give the power to the ethnic communities to do what they want. We have seen what it has done. I wish I had more time, but I have not. I commend the Bill to the Senate and I hope that the Senate will pass it.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– by leave- Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented, unwittingly, by Senator Lajovic. When the Labor Government was going through the teething period of establishing ethnic radio, and during the transmission from the Whitlam Government to the Fraser Government, I, along with a number of ethnic representatives, was a member of a federal committee which was trying to mediate in any disputes. I state very definitely and in a bipartisan manner that I and the Labor Government were proud and happy to have Senator Davidson on the committee. A committee with representatives from the two major parties cannot involve itself in rorts. When the Fraser Government took over, I was turfed off that committee, and no other Labor man has ever been appointed. I say that to Senator Lajovic more in sorrow than in anger.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I, like Senator Lajovic, was sorry that he did not have more time. I thank him for a thoughtful and constructive contribution to the debate on this Bill. I think he covered very amply the points I would have -

Senator Button:

– Don’t be so patronising. You are patronising the ethnics; that is what you are doing. We are awake to you.

Senator CHANEY:

-That interjection is at about the level of the contribution made to the debate by Senator Button earlier this afternoon. Senator Lajovic dealt with the areas of need, the argument of divisive effect, and the question of cost, in a way which will save me time in my reply. I will not try to cover the same ground as Senator Lajovic did, thereby taking up more of the time of the Senate.

A great deal of the comment which requires a response can be met simply by going back to the second reading speech, in which the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) made quite clear statements on a number of points about which concern has been expressed this afternoon. Dealing firstly with the central point of concern, which is whether the Bill ought to be sent off to a committee, I address my remarks to those honourable senators who have indicated that they think that is a suitable or necessary course. I include in that the honourable senators who represent the Australian Democrats. If we look at the history of this Bill and at the history of the proposed Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation, it is clear that the course which is so often an attractive one is not really necessary in this case. I ask honourable senators to bear in mind that this is an area in which there has already been a degree of experimentation through the Special Broadcasting Service and an area in which there has been an inquiry by the Ethnic Television Review Panel, chaired by Mr Frank Galbally. The Panel was asked by the Government to undertake a detailed series of consultations with interested groups and individuals about the form of a permanent ethnic television service. So we had a series of consultations with ethnic communities, and we have had the experience of the Special Broadcasting Service. This Bill is based on the report and deliberations of the Ethnic Television Review Panel and on the experience which has been gained in the Special Broadcasting Service.

Two other aspects of the Bill I think are worth consideration. The Government has put into the Bill a provision for regular review. Indeed, the first review of the Bill will take place after two years, and thereafter reviews will occur at fiveyearly intervals. Another important point is that the Bill has a sunset clause which provides that Parliament must approve the continuation of the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation after seven years. So there is an automatic requirement for parliamentary review. So to start with, we have had some experimentation in the community; we have had an inquiry; we have a Bill which has been subject to a lot of discussion; we also have an inbuilt requirement for review; and we have a sunset clause. Quite frankly, to say that a Bill which has gone through those five courses also requires to be sent off to a Senate committee I think is a very strong case of not only belts and braces but also crutches and all sorts of other aids to keep up the trousers. I suggest that there is an unnecessary element of caution in the view that has been put forward. I ask honourable senators to consider this matter not in the light of whether as a generality we want Bills to get this sort of consideration but whether this Bill, given the careful consideration it has received and the number of sieves it has been put through, ought to be treated in that way.

I remind honourable senators of the functions of the Corporation. Proposed new section 79D answers many of the fears which were expressed by a number of honourable senators. This Corporation is not designed to promote the interests of some single ethnic community or a small group of ethnic communities. It is, in fact, a Corporation which is to provide a service to the whole community, a community which has already been broadened and enriched by migration. We have seen the benefits of that in such various areas as, I suppose, the night life and restaurants of Australia. The change in the character of our country has affected our lifestyles. Nevertheless, many aspects of our culture remain narrowly confined, and the Corporation is designed to try to ensure that we benefit from the many different cultures which exist in this country. Proposed new section 79D states:

  1. 1 ) The functions of the Corporation are-

    1. to provide multicultural and multilingual broadcasting and television services that-
    1. appeal to, entertain, inform and are of educational value to the Australian community as a whole and its component ethnic communities; and
    2. foster understanding and appreciation of the diverse cultures within Australia;

I believe that that provision reflects very much the ideals Senator MacGibbon expressed as being his ideals for Australia, and the care that has been taken in this definition of what the multicultural corporation is to do reflects the very concerns Senator MacGibbon has expressed. I do not believe that what is being put forward will promote the sort of divisiveness about which the honourable senator expressed some concern.

A number of speakers- Senator MacGibbon was one and I think Senator Button was another- referred to the Aboriginal section of the population and asked whether those people would be catered for. I assure the Senate that that is a matter about which I have had some discussions with the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley). The Minister and I are in agreement that the Corporation should provide services for the Aboriginal community. I note that in the debate on the Bill in the House of Representatives legislation committee

Mr Staley was asked a question, to which he replied:

I have had discussions with potential Aboriginal broadcasters and they have asked me whether they would be entitled to seek assistance under this Bill. I said that most decidedly they would. I am a Scottish-English ethnic. Aboriginals are Aboriginal ethnics.

I assure honourable senators that the Aboriginal community will not be neglected by the Corporation. If I could touch very quickly on the specific matters raised in the debate, Senator Ryan expressed concern about consultation with ethnic communities. I refer to the fact that the Ethnic Television Review Panel consulted with ethnic communities extensively on the establishment of this service. I also remind the Senate that, under the legislation, the Corporation is required to establish State and national consultative committees to advise the Corporation on the performance of its functions. These committees will include members of ethnic background and will assist in gauging community response to IMBC programs. We are not getting the sort of direct community control which is suggested by Senator Button and which would, I think, lend itself to the development of divided and divisive situations. Instead, we are getting consultation with the ethnic community to ensure that its needs are being met by a body which has its broad responsibility denned under the Bill.

A number of points have been made about cost. I simply say that the Government’s intention is to appropriate to the Corporation funds in the order of $20m rather than $140m in the coming year. One cannot put a precise figure on matters which are the subject of budgetary consideration. I simply assure the Senate that what is involved is not $ 140m, which seems to have been plucked out of the air by some interests in this field, but rather a figure of about $20m. Concern was expressed about impact on the ethnic Press. Again, I think in this field it is important to notice the difference between the audience the ethnic Press is servicing and the audience the Corporation will service. The ethnic Press in general is directed at a specific single ethnic group whereas the Corporation is aiming at a much broader audience, and indeed to all Australians. Hence, it will appeal to a quite different brand of advertisers and to a much wider audience. It is the view of the Government that therefore the impact will not be the impact which is feared by some sections of the ethnic Press. The Government regards the impact of the ethnic Press as important. That section of the media plays an important role in Australia for the sorts of reasons that were mentioned by Senator Lajovic, but the establishment of the Corporation is a different undertaking. It is trying to deal with a different and much broader section of the community. We will certainly watch that aspect of the operation of the Corporation to ensure that damage is not done to the ethnic Press. Senator Button referred to the patrician organisation. I can only say that that reference was part of a disappointing speech from a senator who usually makes a much more constructive contribution to the debate. The consultation procedures proposed in this legislation will not lend themselves to the sort of description given by Senator Button.

The motion moved by the Australian Labor Party accepts the idea of one independent statutory authority providing new and innovative programming, fostering an Australian identity and reflecting the diversity of the Australian community. It is to provide ethnic broadcasting services and government funding to assist all public broadcasting. It is notable that these are objectives which the Bill itself is designed to achieve. It will provide ethnic radio services to ethnic communities, a multicultural television service accessible to the whole community but reflecting the diversity of cultural backgrounds of present day Australians and assistance for the support and encouragement of the provision and development of the full range of public radio and television services. The area of difference between the Government and the Opposition, if we are to take the Labor Party’s amendment as being an indication of its position, is that the Opposition wants specific interest groups to be responsible for programs and full government funding.

It is quite clear that there are great advantages in the Bill for the very reasons that have been advanced in this debate today by contributors such as Senator MacGibbon and Senator Lajovic. What we are putting forward is more likely to contribute to a multicultural Australia with respect for cultural diversity rather than the sort of divided Australia that some senators seem to fear. I do not wish to make any other comments on the Bill. I thank honourable senators, all of whom on the Government side have expressed support for the Bill although a couple have indicated that they would like the Bill to go before a committee. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 35

Majority…… 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

– I move:

In view of the time, my comments will be extremely brief. All honourable senators know that Senate committees have a high reputation throughout this country for discovering facts and making very sensible reports which most of us feel are of great benefit to the whole nation. We all know of other reports of the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts- the Davidson Committee- to which I am moving that this Bill be referred for report. I am sure that real progress can be made by that Committee in this case by the Senate’s first sitting week in August. I hope that the Senate will see the wisdom of a short delay in the passage of this Bill.

Senator MacGibbon:

– I second the motion.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I did make it clear in my response to the second reading debate on the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1980 that the Government opposed the motion foreshadowed by Senator Townley. I simply reiterate that this proposal has been through a number of processes and I think it would be quite inappropriate to make it the subject of a reference to a further committee. I have referred to the fact that already there has been a degree of experimentation through the Special Broadcasting Service, that already there has been an inquiry by the Galbally Committee, that already the legislation has gone through a considerable amount of discussion by the Government parties, and that the matter is now at the stage at which the Government has indicated that it wishes broadcasting to start in October. I referred also to the fact, and I remind the Senate of it, that the Bill contains a sunset clause which requires it to come back before the Parliament within seven years. Also, I remind the Senate that the Bill contains provisions for a review after two years and a further review at fiveyearly intervals. To suggest that this legislation requires the attention of a Senate committee is, I believe, not realistic. I ask the Senate to defeat the motion moved by Senator Townley.

Question put.

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

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

AYES: 30

NOES: 29

Majority……. 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2677

TRADE PRACTICES (BOYCOTTS) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 May, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Mr President, I have not discussed the matter with Senator Button, but would it be feasible to debate cognately the Trade Practices (Boycotts) Amendment Bill 1980 and the Conciliation and Arbitration (Boycotts) Amendment Bill 1 980?

The PRESIDENT:

-Is it the wish of the Senate to have a cognate debate on these matters? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition opposes both the Trade Practices (Boycotts) Amendment Bill 1980 and the Conciliation and Arbitration (Boycotts) Amendment Bill 1 980. As briefly as possible, I will try to indicate why. The purpose of the Bills is to integrate better the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Standing on its own, that would seem to be a fairly reasonable objective. In the context of this legislation it is quite extraordinary.

I want to detail in particular why it is extraordinary, but before doing so I want to examine briefly the history of this legislation. This is very rushed legislation which is brought into this place for debate on the second last day of the sitting. Ever since I have been a member of this place while the Fraser Government has been in office, industrial relations legislation has always been brought in on the last day of the sitting and usually it has been guillotined through. The reason of course is that there is no planning of industrial relations legislation and there is no concept in the mind of the Government about what industrial relations legislation is about. Rather it is a set of knee-jerk conditioned responses which are thought by the Government to have some electoral advantage and they are usually at the instigation of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser).

The purpose behind this legislation is to satisfy the divisive and confrontationist stance of the Prime Minister on industrial relations matters. This is nowhere better illustrated than in the socalled Laidely dispute in New South Wales in which the Prime Minister intervened to say that it was a dispute which should have been dealt with by the New South Wales Government presumably because geographically the dispute was confined to New South Wales. The dispute was the result of this Government’s trade practices legislation. As in all of these matters, the problem was ultimately solved by the intervention of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and not by the intervention of the Prime Minister. As a result of the Laidely matter- there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the Government side of the chamber over the plight of Mr Laidely as an archetypal small businessman, as I think he was describedthis legislation has really come about.

Honourable senators will remember that in that matter a conference was convened by Mr Justice Moore which ultimately resulted in a settlement of the dispute. At the time the conference made Government Ministers furious. Of course this legislation which is now being brought in is illustrative of the inconsistency and knee-jerk reaction of the Government’s approach and it really is quite consistent with the action that Mr Justice Moore took. All this stems from the two faces of the Fraser Government’s industrial relations policy which was illustrated by the Prime Minister in 1975 when he was the Leader of the Opposition and he talked about industrial relations in two ways. One way was to talk about industrial relations as requiring sanctions. The other way was to talk about the need for greater consultation. In a sense both positions are mutually exclusive. It is a sort of schizophrenic approach to the whole problem.

In relation to this legislation I want to illustrate some of the things which have happened. There was no consultation with the Australian Council of Trade Unions in spite of requests for the contents of this legislation. At the National Labour Consultative Council meeting on 5 May- a body made up of representatives of employers, unions and government- both the employers and the union representatives said that there was no need for this legislation. The great question which hangs over all of the industrial relations policy of this Government is why this legislation has been introduced. Of course the reason is that the Government perceives it as being electorally advantageous to be able to claim that in fact it is doing something about industrial disputes. The sad thing about the Fraser Government is that in five years there has not been one incident which the Government could point to as an action of the Government which has in fact brought about a resolution of an industrial dispute. I think this legislation will fall into the same basket. It will not lead to the resolution of industrial disputes. It will lead to further division and further unrest in the industrial field.

One of the very difficult problems about this legislation is the fact that it was conceptually wrong right from the start. What essentially happened was that the Government had a look at American practice and American legislation, and formulated its rather silly attitudes on the basis of what has happened in the United States. The Government has completely ignored the existence of an industrial arbitration system in Australia which allegedly has bipartisan support. I think it was in 1948 that that sort of bipartisan attitude was established in Australia so as to maintain the conciliation and arbitration system. In the United States there is no such system. There is a system of sanctions in the form of fines and so on for breaches of collective agreements, breaches of collective bargaining arrangements and those sorts of things. This is indigenous, as it were, to the United States system but it is not indigenous- quite foreign- to the Australian system of industrial relations. So right from the start we have had a sort of foreign borrowing, as it were, of legislation which is totally inappropriate to the Australian scene.

The next point I make is that this legislation is in part presented as a Bill designed to assist small business in Australia from the ravages of industrial relations activity. The record of the Fraser Government in relation to looking after the interests of small business is perhaps more abysmal than its record on anything else. For example, I ask honourable senators to look at the number of bankruptcies- now at a record high- as being an indication of the difficulties of small business. I invite honourable senators to look at the inconsistencies which exist at the moment because of the matters which are being raised in this Parliament. For example, Mr Laidely was alleged to be a small businessman and a petrol retailer. In another pan of this Parliament one member of parliament made a great fuss about the dreadful deprivation of people engaged in the petrol retailing business- service station proprietors- as a result of the lack of this Government’s action to protect those small proprietors against the monopoly interests of the oil companies. Some 4,000 have gone out of business in recent years. Of course any amendment to the conciliation and arbitration legislation or to the trade practices legislation will not be of much help to those 4,000. But the Government is doing nothing about that because the predatory oil companies, rather than the alleged predatory trade unions are responsible for the sufferings of small businessmen.

I vividly recall Senator Messner explaining in this chamber with great passion how legislation of this kind would assist small businessmen in Australia. The Government is doing nothing directed towards that in any positive sense. The only people who get into industrial trouble in any real way are the employers who do not bother to give sufficient attention to industrial relations problems and who are negligent of their responsibilities in regard to these matters. Honourable senators can look at the hundreds upon hundreds of Australian companies which have very successful industrial relations records. The reason is that they take the time and they are the sons of companies represented by employer organisations which say to the Fraser Government: ‘We do not want legislation of this kind’. But the Government in its wisdom knows best. I have not heard much wisdom from the Government side on any industrial relations matter. I wonder where the Government gets its advice from. I know it does not come from the Department of Industrial Relations which merely advises after the neanderthal attitudes of the Government have been determined and then the Department has the unhappy consequence of trying to carry out the wishes of the Government in regard to these attitudes. Earlier I referred to the imposition of these provisions designed to deal with boycotts originally under the trade practices legislation. This imposition arose from the United States. I very briefly want to mention the recommendation of the Swanson Committee report which Committee was set up by this Government to advise on trade practices. The report of that Committee stated:

The scheme of procedures for resolving disputes under the Trade Practices Act is inappropriate for solving the issues concerning employees.

That is something which the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission agrees with, something that the employers agree with and something that the unions agree with; only the Government does not agree with it. For that reason, both the employers and the unions adopted the practice of considering any matters under the trade practices legislation which the Trade Practices Commissioner referred to them for conciliation rather than going on with them in the Trade Practices Tribunal. That mechanism was developed in order to avoid the difficulties of confrontation in dealing with these matters in the Trade Practices Tribunal. They were given to an expert bodythe Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

I refer to only two points concerning the provisions of the Bill. My colleague, Senator Evans, will refer to other aspects of it. A very messy procedure is envisaged where one might apply for an injunction in the Federal Court of Australia to prevent the continuation of an alleged boycott and at the same time have available conciliation but not arbitration proceedings in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. No longer is it just a question of shuffling between parties; it is a question now of shuffling between jurisdictions under the Fraser Government legislation. It will be more confusing than ever. Of course, ultimately if any dispute was ever resolved in the Federal Court, it would result in very heavy penalties being imposed on the unions, penalties which will not work and which have never worked. Again, this is an example of noisy, pre-election rhetoric and window-dressing on behalf of the Fraser Government which has shown itself to be completely inept in providing any solutions to industrial problems in Australia.

One example is its total inactivity on the need to do something about the consequences of a decision in the Moore v. Doyle case which it has prevaricated on in the five years it has been in government. There are many other examples. The Opposition is totally opposed to both pieces of legislation for some of the reasons which I have indicated and for further reasons which will be indicated by other honourable senators.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– I do not believe that any legislation could point out more clearly the different philosophies of the two parties in this Parliament. On one hand, we have the Opposition which, in its fanatical support of the left wing radical trade union movement, believes that unions should be above the law and that while this secondary boycott legislation applies to both businesses and unions, the unions should be allowed to band together to bring private enterprise in this country to the point of bankruptcy. I will cite a couple of examples where the secondary boycott legislation has worked in my State. Senator Button said today that it has never worked, that no legislation has ever had any bearing on an industrial dispute.

This legislation, before it was amended, has worked on many occasions in our State. I will give two examples. Firstly, an employer wanted to extend his trading hours. His employees were willing to work those extended hours for quite considerable over-time payments. The executive of the union disagreed. It called members of that union out. Not only were the members of that union called but also members of the Transport Workers Union of Australia were called upon to join in the dispute. On this occasion the Transport Workers Union joined the dispute and so denied the employer goods to his store. The Union refused to supply the goods. This, of course, is an example of a typical secondary boycott. When that union was threatened with action under the secondary boycott laws, it gave in and the goods were delivered to that store.

I refer to a second case of an employer whose employees refused to go on strike. The executive called on the union to strike but the employees refused to strike. A second union- a petrol industry union- was called in to refuse to deliver petrol to the bus service involved until the employer forced his unionists to strike against their will.

Senator Button:

– Will you tell us the names of these cases? You are making them up, aren’t you?

Senator WALTERS:

-That is a position with which the Opposition agrees entirely. If Senator Button is interested in the matter he can look at the media reports in our State and he will find that this occurred. On both occasions secondary boycott action was threatened through the trade practices legislation and on both occasions the unions withdrew. It is the philosophy of the Opposition that the unions can exert their muscle and bring private employers to their knees. On the other hand, the Government believes that every individual has his rights. If an individual wants to withdraw his labour, he has a right to do so but under no circumstances should there be pressure or intimidation brought upon him to strike. The Government believes in the freedom of the individual, the freedom of a man to run his private business, in free and open competition, and the freedom of a man to work or to withdraw his labour without the threats and intimidation that are the hallmark of the left wing unions.

The basis of section 45D in the Trade Practices Act is to ensure the freedom of the individual. It prohibits secondary boycotts. There is no suggestion in the legislation that a unionist, primarily fighting for his rights, should be denied the freedom to strike. When the legislation was originally passed in this Parliament, the Opposition fought it very violently. There has been much criticism by the Opposition that these sections are in the Trade Practices Act, the argument being that while it is right and just for punitive secondary boycott legislation to apply to businesses, it is completely unjust for similar legislation to apply to unions. This secondary boycotts legislation applies to all. As a result it is not found in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It is to be found in the Trade Practices Act.

As I have said, while this legislation has worked and worked well in the area of federal disputation- where the Federal Government has control- in the recent dispute that Senator Button referred to concerning Mr Leon Laidely there appeared to be certain anomalies that required correcting. These amendments have occurred as a result of that. We found that in the dispute involving Mr Leon Laidely, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission held hearings between the union and the petrol company concerned, while at the same time not including Mr Laidely- the person damaged by the dispute. As honourable senators will recall, Mr Laidely was finally granted a hearing by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission when the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) requested it. As a result of that hearing, the dispute was satisfactorily resolved. These amendments before us now make sure that hearings, such as those held prior to Mr Laidely being involved, cannot happen again. Agreements cannot be made in the absence of the disadvantaged person. The amendment to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act permits a breach of the secondary boycotts provision- section 45D in the Trade Practices Act- to be subject to conciliation, not arbitration, before the Commission. However, the amendment stipulates that the disadvantaged person, with the right to take action under sections 45 D and 45E must be present. If no agreement is reached, his right to take action under section 45D of the Trade Practices Act still remains. Because not all disputes involving secondary boycotts fall within the proposed new jurisdiction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, it is proposed that, with the agreement of the States- the Commonwealth will be seeking that agreement- conciliation could be exercised by a court, tribunal or authority of that State or Territory.

Finally, if a dispute is brought to the attention of the Commission, whether by the Minister, by either of the parties in dispute, or by any other means, the Commission may call together the parties to the dispute to try to settle it without in any way prejudicing the right of the injured party to take action under the Trade Practices Act. These amendments are for the protection of the individual, as I said earlier. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-Asking this Government to feel ashamed of itself is likely to be about as productive an enterprise as asking Senator Walters to understand industrial law, industrial relations practice, or industrial relations realities in the latter part of the 20th century. In other words, it is a task of some magnitude.

Senator Button:

– Or the earlier part.

Senator EVANS:

– Or indeed the earlier part. Perhaps even the 19th century might be too optimistic a suggestion. The Government ought to hang its head at this muddled hotchpotch of illdrafted, union-bashing nonsense which will work no positive advantage at all for any single group in the community, let alone the small businessman which it is purportedly designed to protect. It will contribute nothing but further provocation and disputation to an already strained industrial relations climate.

As to the new section 45E, the centrepiece of this legislation, its deficiencies have, I think, been effectively described by Senator Button. Let me summarise briefly what they are. In the first place, this kind of provision is totally unnecessary. The Laidely dispute, which was obviously the incentive for this legislative enterprise, was, as everyone has acknowledged, resolved to the satisfaction of all the parties, including Leon Laidely himself, as will be the case with every industrial dispute of this kind that arises in the future. It is by that method of consultation that disputes of this nature will ultimately be resolved. Secondly, there is no guarantee, even when this Bill is passed, that there will be a cooling off period in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, as is provided for in the legislation, once proceedings are started in the Federal Court of Australia. The court is not given a mandatory obligation to refer such matters to the Commission upon request; it is simply conferred a discretion. There is no guarantee at all that the judges will satisfy requests by certain parties for the matter to go off in this way.

Again, no capacity is vested in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission actually to arbitrate a dispute if the circumstances demand it and conciliation breaks down. It might be thought that there would be some constitutional difficulty about endeavouring to vest such a power in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. But the Government, having embarked on the venture of relying on the corporations power to vest the conciliatory function in the Commission in disputes of this kind, surely ought not to shy at the hurdle of going beyond that and vesting an arbitral power as well. It would seem to me to be equally within constitutional competence. The fourth point is that there is no guarantee that, if a solution is conciliated by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to the satisfaction of the parties immediately involved in the dispute, the matter will rest there. That follows, of course, because the Minister is defined as a party to the proceedings, and he can require proceedings to be reinstated in the Court if he feels that insufficient damage has been done by the dispute up to that date to advance his party’s political cause. There still remains the option to take up the matter again in the Court.

Finally, and this is the centrepiece of our objection, there is no likelihood at all that the whole elaborate machinery created in this new 45E provision will do anything to resolve problems as they arise in the future in this area. It will do nothing to resolve them and nothing to either stimulate or accelerate their resolution. This, I think, is evident in the very obvious reluctance which the Trade Practices Commission has demonstrated - notwithstanding Senator Walters’ inventions to the contrary- to involve itself in any way at all in 45D disputes. When disputes have been notified to the Trade Practices Commission, as they have been on a number of occasions, the response of the Commission has been to run for cover, to refer them to the National Labour Consultative Council, to deal with them in some way of that kind and not to take the matters into court and seek to implement and apply formal machinery of this kind. The Trade Practices Commission has been reluctant to apply these kinds of sanctions and this kind of muscle because it knows perfectly well that, however the form of this kind of legislation may be dressed up, it has nothing to do with anti-competitive activity, commercial law, consumer protection, or any of the other subject matter, properly so-called, of a Trade Practices Act.

This law concerns itself with the prohibition of essentially industrial activity- activity designed at producing industrial ends, and improvement in the terms and conditions of employment, in the widest sense of that phrase, and the achievement of other kinds of goals by trade unions and employees which are associated with the improvement of the lot of working men and women in this country. What all experience in this area should have shown us- one wonders just how long it will take for this lesson to sink in to the Government- is that one cannot resolve matters of this kind in the courts, and that litigation inflames disputes rather than dampens them down. The only kind of machinery that has any prospect at all, if machinery be necessary, is that in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It is nonsense for matters of this kind to be capable of litigation in the way they now are. The Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street, has publicly acknowledged that fact on numerous occasions, one well-known occasion last year being the Deakin Memorial Lecture at Melbourne University, when he said, amongst other things, that he rejected the need for ‘a battery of legislation’ to abolish strike action and force unions to go to tribunals and accept their judgments. His lecture continued:

We live in a democracy and cannot force people to work if they refuse to. Therefore, the Government can try and persuade or influence people to go back to work but we cannot, in the ultimate, force them to do so.

That was said, of course, in a slightly broader context than that of the legislation before us now, but it represents a state of mind which is regrettably not one pre-eminent in this Government. It is just not understood by anyone else but by Mr Street, apparently, that heavy penal sanctions and legislation of this kind involving the courts in essentially industrial matters is just industrial relations nonsense. It was ever thus and it will ever be thus.

The other more specific aspect of this legislation to which I shall address some remarks in the three or four minutes remaining to me is the amendments to section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. This is an aspect of the Bill about which the Government really ought to be blushing. It has been caught out in what can be construed only as deception which, if it were not so serious in its implications, would be palpably childish. We have a Bill to amend the existing 45 D, which was described by the Minister in his second reading speech as being drafted with the intention of extending the operation of 45 D to prohibit secondary boycotts of non-corporate persons’. The explanatory memorandum to the Bill is in similar terms, and in regard to the amendments it states:

Clause 4 extends sub-section 45 D ( I ) to cover, so far as is constitutionally possible, situations in which the ‘target’ of a secondary boycott is not a corporation.

Of course, it is perfectly clear- it has become clear even now, it seems, to the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) and his advisers- that the legislation before us, the legislation that was passed by the House of Representatives, does nothing of this kind. In the first place it is not at all clear that it even succeeds in extending the sanctions of section 45d to situations in which the target is non-corporate behaviour, except by virtue of the extended operation of section 6 of the Act when the context is interstate or overseas trade; because when we look at it the existing proposal for section 45d ( 1 ) (a) on its own terms extends only to situations in which persons one and two, the employees, direct their activity against a target which is described respectively as either a third person or a fourth person, and in both instances in order for the section as it is presently drafted to bite, that target has to be a corporation. I cannot see- unless I have overlooked something entirely- that the legislation even succeeds in what it is stated to be doing; that is, extending the operation to noncorporate targets.

Even worse than that, and rather more important than that, is the fact that it is perfectly clear that the draft of section 45D (1) (a) before us, that was passed by the House of Representatives, does not extend just to secondary boycotts as is claimed, but has a greatly extended operation, and in fact now applies to primary boycotts; that is, to situations in which the target of the employee or union activity in question is not some person who is one or two places removed from the focal point of the activity, but the person against whom the action is immediately taken, which is a classic primary boycott situation. I will not go into the technicalities, except to say that it follows very clearly from a reading of section 45d ( 1 ) (a) in the draft that is before us that in any situation in which persons No. 1 and No. 2 are employees, and where person No. 3 as described in that provision is the employer, and person No. 4 is someome else, there is a direct proscription of primary boycott activity.

The implications of that are very great indeed. I do acknowledge by virtue of the continued application of section 45D (3) that there are some kinds of industrial activities which would still be outside the scope of the sanctions of the Act; that is, activity directly aimed at improving the terms and conditions of employment. But it has been well appreciated, I think, that section 45d (3) by no means extends to exempt all the classes of union and employee activity which have traditionally been regarded as action of an industrial kind. In particular it would not extend to overtime-type disputes, actions to secure various employment fringe benefits which are not properly described as conditions of employment; nor would it extend to demarcation disputes; nor would it extend to industrial action taken to secure some larger community goal, for example, Medibank legislation or something of that kind.

I simply make the point in all of this that if the extension of the Trade Practices Act accomplished by this provision before us to primary boycotts has been deliberate, the Fraser Government has been unbelievably dishonest. If it is now claimed by the Attorney-General, as perhaps it will be, to be the product of some error, the Government has still been unbelievably negligent. The speed with which the Bill was rushed through the House of Representatives last week, with very little time for the Opposition to absorb the detail of it, indicates to me and to the Opposition that the Government was being deliberately deceptive, hoping that this particular point would not be picked up. Either way, its actions have been disgraceful and indefensible.

As a result of that it is with some satisfaction that I note from the amendments which have been circulated today that the Government has now been obliged to acknowledge, to concede, the error of its ways, and that these amendments now coming forward will at least ensure, as I read them, that section 45D does in fact now do what the Government said it would do in its second reading speech and explanatory memorandum; that is, not extend the section to primary boycotts, but rather extend the secondary boycott concept to non-corporate targets. The satisfaction goes only as far as noting that the Government is now doing what it said it would do. We are not, of course, satisfied with the substantive result of that particular amendment. Certainly the Act as a whole gives no satisfaction to the Opposition or to anyone else in the community. If the Government is dogmatically insistent on passing this legislation in its amended form, it cannot possibly give any satisfaction to anyone actively involved in industrial relations in this community on either the employer or employee side. It cannot give any satisfaction to the community as a whole, which will go on in the future, as it has had to do in the past, bearing the brunt of this Government’s quite extraordinary wrong-headedness on industrial relations matters.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– These Bills place me and the Australian Democrats in some form of dilemma. On the one hand we are totally opposed, as we have said many times before, to the type of boycotts imposed on individuals or companies such as we saw in the case of Mr Laidely, which these Bills are designed to prevent in the future. To that extent we would be inclined to support them. We are appalled at the way in which heavy-handed autocratic trade unions and autocratic transnational companies, multinational companies and big business are ganging up on small businessmen and small people. One could give many examples of that, not the least of which is the way in which secondary boycotts have been instituted by oil companies against service stations which sell petrol.

On the other hand, I am not convinced that the Trade Practices Act is the right legislation under which to solve these industrial disputes. Our position has been consistent along those lines, as has the Australian Labor Party’s view been consistent. We can try to solve secondary boycotts if we will, but it is something that is anathema, as scab labour is to the union movement, to legislate for the solution of industrial disputes under trade practices legislation. I think that is the core of the problem in this particular case. What worries me about this is why- and I think Senator Evans mentioned this as well- the Government is rushing in this sort of amendment to the legislation at this time. In the House of Representatives only two weeks ago, as Mr Lionel Bowen said, the legislation was introduced into the House at approximately 3.30 p.m., and a guillotine of two hours was imposed for discussion of a Bill which is extraordinarily complex. One wonders why, because no reason has been given by the Government to my knowledge for the urgency of this amending legislation.

The reason for this amending legislation was the original section 45D of the Trade Practices Act which, as we know, almost paralysed this entire country. Obviously the Government has been big enough to say, ‘We made a mistake there. There was something obviously wrong with section 45D which would not work’. To its credit the Government says it has the solution, and here it is in section 45E and the rest of this Bill. But one wonders why the Government gave only a total of two hours for discussion of the Bill in the House of Representatives, and why the Bill is being rushed through without, as I understand it, proper discussion with the consultative council which the Government wisely set up to confer on these issues with trade union leaders and whatever.

As I understand it, this particular amending legislation is being commended by neither trade union leaders nor industry leaders. In fact I find it difficult, with the possible exception of Senator Walters, to find a champion for this particular legislation. What frightens me about the whole concept, and I pay a tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) here, for his sincerity in trying to solve industrial disputes -

Senator Button:

– Oh, come on!

Senator CHIPP:

-Let me finish. I think we would not be looking at the problem properly if we just simply in a political point scoring race said that Fraser wants confrontation, therefore he wants to win votes on this Bill. I think that is over-simplifying the matter. If that was his situation, it would be relatively easy to deal with. We could say that he was just being political, and we could expose him. That would be easy. The terrifying thing about the Prime Minister is that he genuinely believes that he has the capacity to understand and solve industrial disputes. That attitude is even more dangerous than the former attitude I expressed. If one is persuaded totally that one is an oracle on the problems surrounding industrial disputes and that one has the solution, one will ram legislation through this Parliament notwithstanding any opposition. I think that is the terrifying aspect of this legislation, as it was with other pieces of industrial relations legislation we have had. The Prime Minister does not seem to learn lessons from his failures in the industrial relations field.

I ask Senator Button to be charitable for a moment and to consider my explanation for the Prime Minister’s conduct and his obsession with the Industrial Relations Bureau and this legislation. His tactics have not worked. It can be proved clearly that they will not work and can never work. So why the rush, why the obsession, to try to improve something which is impossible to begin with? In the Laidely case it was at least arguable- I put it no higher than that- that section 45D of the Trade Practices Act was part of the problem and not part of the solution. I refer to an article in the Melbourne Age of 25 March 1980, which states:

The president of the Arbitration Commission, Sir John Moore, yesterday reaffirmed his view that Section 45d of the Trade Practices Act had little or no place in Australian industrial relations.

Sir John made clear his low regard for the new law, which has operated outside the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to create more disputes than it has settled.

As a member of the Senate who has the luxury of voting for or against a piece of legislation on its merits, who do I, as an Australian Democrat, tend to believe- the Prime Minister, whose experience in industrial relations is minimal to say the least, or Sir John Moore, a man who has dedicated his life to industrial relations? I think that is a fair question for a member of the Senate to ask himself. I would suggest that those strong words of Sir John Moore would carry a great deal of weight in an honourable senator’s objective mind. Sir John ‘s attitude is also made clear in a statement which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph of 6 April 1980. Speaking about section 45D, he stated:

It creates problems which might not have otherwise been created- that’s a fact, not a complaint.

He also added:

Once there is a dispute, it is within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Commission, whether it is related to a secondary boycott or anything else.

Admittedly Sir John was talking about section 45D. One must ask oneself: Do these further amendments to the Act and the insertion of section 45E improve the situation or exacerbate what was already a bad situation? The comments one has read by leaders of unions and industry make one lean to the view that they do not help, that they make the situation worse. I conclude by reading from a leader article which appeared in the Australian Financial Review- & newspaper whose objectivity in most cases I respect greatly. I do not think any honourable senator opposite could say that that newspaper is a proOpposition, pro-Labor or pro-trade union journal. The article was headed: ‘Making an ass of the law ‘. Speaking about the law it stated:

There are times when the layman feels able to say, with full confidence in his own commonsense, that the law is an ass.

Yet it is always within the province of government to make the law an ass- and that is what appears to be happening at present with the proposed amendments to the Trade Practices Act concerning secondary boycotts.

Even granted that the Government may have suddenly become dazzled by an ideological bias in favour of small businessmen, it is difficult to see what the proposed amendments- encompassed in the new Section 45e- would accomplish.

These doubts have raised opposition from some of the more thoughtful members of Cabinet.

I regard that comment as being highly significant. I am reading from a responsible journal, the Australian Financial Review. We are given to understand that members of the Cabinet very rarely leak information to the newspapers. The fact that the Australian Financial Review has printed that in the leader column indicates to me, after 20 years in this place, that the Australian Financial Review had heard, either directly or indirectly, that several Ministers in the Cabinet had doubts about this legislation. If they are having doubts about it, why should not those of us who have been given so little time to contemplate this legislation or have its provisions tested also have doubts about it? The article in the Australian Financial Review continues:

But it remains doubtful whether enough time will be given for them to be considered fully.

But the Government would be wise to proceed with care if it wishes to retain respect for the dignity, credibility and viability of the laws that Parliament, in the Government’s wisdom, is asked to pass.

The weaknesses of the proposed 45e amendment are all too evident.

It is for precisely those reasons that the Australian Democrats will be voting with the Opposition in opposing these Bills.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– I join in the Opposition’s condemnation of this legislative proposal. It is yet another example of the Government’s attempt to shore up its abuse of the Federal judicial process which has led it in the last few years to place within the jurisdiction of the Trade Practices Commission matters which can involve simple industrial relations issues whose natural habitat, quite clearly, is the conciliation and arbitration process set up under the Constitution of this country as a separate, impartial body with its own integrity in order to deal with the conflicts that must occur in any advanced society between the providers of capital and the sellers of labour. In the conciliation and arbitration process presided over by Sir John Moore we have a well-tested device- of course, it has its problems at times- within the Australian community for dealing with matters such as the Laidely dispute, which was of course the emotional matrix and the genesis for this legislation.

Of course, the paradox and the irony is that the Laidely dispute could in no way have been solved by the legislation which is before the chamber tonight. That dispute involved State registered unions which do not come within the terms of this legislation- in fact, they are specifically excluded from it as the legislation extends only to federally registered unions. The perceptions that were abroad some weeks ago during the so-called Laidely dispute have given rise to a very ill-thought-out piece of legislation which we, as an Opposition, oppose. We have the supplementary support of the Australian Democrats. I join Senator Chipp in expressing admiration for Sir John Moore, who tried to salvage the industrial and social life of this country, particularly New South Wales. It was being dislocated not only by the immediate disputethat would be taking too narrow an historical view- but also by the dispute itself. As Senator Chipp acknowledged, the dispute could be said to have been exacerbated if not created by section 45 of the Trade Practices Act, which can take an industrial relations matter in which a boycott is effected by an employee trying to preserve or add to his wages or conditions of work and put it in the wrong jurisdiction- the area of injunctions and Federal judicial processes.

It is interesting to note that not one section 45 dispute has been carried through to its logical conclusion by way of fine, for example, because the courts and the employers equally recognise that to do so would be to bring the whole of the industrial, commercial and social life of this nation to a complete standstill. The courts, the employers and the employees have drawn back from that situation, but the Government keeps on exacerbating it by introducing a series of amendments which in themselves acknowledge and admit the weakness of the fundamental situation of retaining section 45 at all. The legislation provides a mechanism whereby some informal conciliation process is set up under the aegis of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in order that the matter may be taken out of the quite inapt jurisdiction of the Federal Court and placed within the hands of those who have the wisdom and the years of experience to try to bring about a resolution of the industrial relations aspects of the dispute which have led to the boycott.

If the aim is in any way to try to solve the dispute within the framework of the conciliation and arbitration system, it is totally inadequate. Firstly, one notes that the jurisdiction, if it can be called that, of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission- it is misnamed as an Arbitration Commission in this situation- merely covers conciliation, to bring the parties together for a round table discussion. There is no power to arbitrate. The traditional power of the Commission is not available to it, whereby it can impose terms upon the parties so that they walk out of that situation knowing that the terms have been imposed by somebody well experienced in the matters under dispute. But further than that, the injunction which has been sought in the Court in the trade practices jurisdiction can remain on foot while the conciliation process is under way. In other words, it hangs as a threat over the person who may have brought about the boycott situation, whereby if some agreement is not arrived at by way of conciliation, then the injunction and those proceedings will continue.

What is more disturbing is that the Minister- a political figure who may very well be simply politically motivated- can request to become a party to those conciliation proceedings. One can be sure that there will be circumstances where the parties wishing to come to an agreement- we had evidence of how this was working during the Laidely dispute- find that for some reason it is not politically acceptable due to some political timetable rather than to some industrial relations timetable. Then it could seem to be opportune for the Government to exacerbate the situation or to get a test case right through to the point of sentence and fine in the Federal Court. Of course, for political motives a Minister, no doubt with the authority of the Cabinet, could frustrate and refuse to accept the conciliation settlement that could have been reached by the parties to the dispute if they had been left alone. I find that most odd within the context of legislation which purports to be an attempt to solve a situation. I think that it will merely create a situation where the matter becomes highly publicised. Of course the whole area of industrial relations and the role of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission have been highly politicised by this Government as it continually comes into this chamber at about four-monthly intervals- since I have been a member of the chamber- trying to undermine and confuse the authority and jurisdiction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

As I have only a brief time allotted to me to speak Mr Deputy President, I would say simply what has been apparent to most observers as this legislation is rushed through the House of Representatives and is now presented to us before the winter recess. It is simply part of the strategy of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to divide and rule in the interests of certain elites, to whom he hands out largess which is available to him as his Treasury fills with the money taken from the average motorist of this country by way of an exorbitant petrol tax. His whole aim is to satisfy the claims of a certain small, narrow segment of the population. His aim is not to conciliate or to try to bring about a situation where the employers and employees can work out their disputes and problems within the appropriate jurisdiction. His aim is to divide and continue within the community a type of confrontation politics from which he hopes to emerge the victor. I feel sure that as the electorate comes to make a decision later this year about the record of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet not only in this field, but also in every other field in which it has mismanaged the affairs of this country, it will deliver a resounding verdict in favour of those who, on this occasion, oppose the passage of this legislation.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I join with my colleagues in opposing the Trade Practices (Boycotts) Amendment Bill and the Conciliation and Arbitration (Boycotts) Amendment Bill. I sum up what I have to say by pointing out that I think this legislation is a direct insult to Sir John Moore after the way in which he has been mediating over recent years in some extremely difficult situations. I think that the Americans have a term about the football fan who after the game is over can tell what went wrong. I think they called him the Saturday night quarterback. That is the epithet I would apply to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). It is all very well to talk after the event and say what might have been done. But when one is dealing with human relations one is dealing with the people and one knows how one can gradually get them into a reasonable frame of mind. The cases of Laidely and Gorman have been mentioned. In the latter case the trade union movement dealt virtually directly with the creation of a lower paid work force. In the case of Laidely, it was quite obvious that if he expanded his team of tanker drivers who were under a State award which was inferior to a Federal award, it would be a strange sort of trade union that would remain passive in the face of that threat. It was not a question of Mr Laidely being hounded out of business. He had been around for a long while and he should have been well aware of what the circumstances were.

I received a communication from Mr Tony Street, the Minister for Industrial Relations, dated 13 May. While it dealt initially with the Federal and State award coverage of refineries members- largely Australian Workers Union- it did refer to another area which is always explosive. I refer to interstate transport drivers. The Minister went on that Sir David Hay had been looking into the matter. The Minister mentioned the inquiry had been completed and that consideration was being given to the recommendations. I resent this piecemeal approach. If amendments are needed to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act why does the Government not make those amendments in the one go? In this case the mediation of Sir John Moore enhanced his status. Whether one likes it or not, when dealing with the rank and file members of any trade union, the union secretary is much more likely to get a decision if it is felt that the mediator is not being nudged by the government of the day no matter who comprises the Government. I would equate the role of Sir John

Moore in this case with one or two earlier cases of Commissioner Clarkson in some of the manufacturing industry disputes. That was the same situation, where a Minister had made an inflammatory statement. He was trying to put words into the mouth of the Commissioner, who resisted. If the Government wants its arbitration system to work, it has to do its part.

The other aspect is the attitude of the media in making heroes of these people who are modernday John Hampdens, and who will prove that by their persecution they are busting the system wide open. I would be the last person to say that something that operated 10 years ago cannot justify change, whether it be the State, the trade unions or the employers who are involved. But there have been too many losers backed by the media. I would include John Laws in that. These people set themselves up as sorts of super mediators from long range. I could use an analogy about the comparison between the wife and the harlot, but I do not want to get into too much difficulty. I know that honourable senators appreciate the reference I am making. People like John Laws pontificate on these things. I believe that Sir John Moore needed moral support and not a veiled censure for what he did.

I conclude by mentioning the role of the media. Honourable senators may recall a serious dispute in the Sydney railway yards about 18 months ago which involved train examiners and others. The secretary of the union involved, Mr Jack Maddox, who is an extremely experienced official, was faced by a battery of reporters who were asking what he was going to do and so on. The workers had been out, I suppose, for about four hours but it was enough time, obviously, to create transport chaos. I know what the response would have been if the State secretary had attempted at 8 o’clock or 9 o’clock at night to get those employees together. I bear in mind the remarks of Senator Chipp. I think an analogy can be drawn between the atmosphere in a dressing room after a football or cricket match when the team has lost and the players are a little snaky. A coach would not try to talk tactics for the next Saturday’s game in that atmosphere. He would wait until about the next Tuesday night.

When disputes occur people’s nerves are frayed. This should be taken note of in media utterances and when Ministers pontificate on disputes. Often disputes are not about people working in air-conditioned offices; they concern people who have genuine grievances about certain conditions and a cooling off period is necessary before you can get calm dialogue. Probably the dispute has not been helped by somebody else who reckons that the people involved are a lot of phoneys. These matters can concern trade union secretaries, trade union organisers and people such as Mr Justice Moore. 1 do not have any doubt that if Mr Justice Moore said at the end of a couple of hours hearing into a dispute that certain action should be taken the people would walk out and would not go back for another week.

The message I leave the Senate is this: I believe that in the age in which we live we have to take note of the rank and file member and appreciate that Jack is as good as his master. That theory is there; it will not go away. The rank and file now is probably better educated. Some people at times urge the rank and file to revolt against the paid union officials. Sometimes a semi-formula is arrived at to send men back to work, but the rank and file members say they will not buy the decision. They believe they have to exercise a little more clout. They are the dynamics, I think, of successful political and industrial relations.

I cannot see how this Bill will help one iota. As a matter of fact, I say as a postscript, that honourable senators should read a number of public pronouncements by Mr Justice Ludeke. Perhaps he does not come from the same rather radical background as one other judge that the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) and I are thinking about. That does not alter the fact that he has given good advice that virtually supports the doctrine that Justice Sir John Moore espouses. I think the legislation is completely unnecessary.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply- I am not surprised that the Labor Party should be opposing these measures. That is consistent with the attitude it has taken in relation to Government industrial legislation. The Opposition persists in endeavouring to identify absurd allegations of government union bashing. It says that the Government does not understand the industrial process and so on. During this Government’s period in office and under the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street, there has been a very considerable degree of understanding and, indeed, success in the industrial relations sphere. The statistics for industrial disputes, time lost and so on simply do not bear out the outlandish claims that are made by the Opposition in every debate we have on this subject.

Senator Bishop:

– Disputes are mostly settled by the ACTU. They have all been settled by Hawke, not by the Government.

Senator DURACK:

-Mr Hawke generally comes along when the dispute is about to be settled and tries to get the kudos. The Labor Party gives it to him. What surprises me in this debate is that the Australian Democrats- this is apparently from Senator Chipp ‘s speech- will oppose the legislation. This legislation has very considerable importance and significance for small businessmen. I do not think any issue has so dramatised the position of the small businessman today when caught between a large union and a large corporation as has the Laidely case. The experiences of Mr Laidely are really directly responsible for the legislation. That is outlined clearly in the second reading speech. I think this legislation has been popularly referred to as the Laidely legislation because it very directly arises out of those experiences.

Let me sum up the importance of this legislation to the small businessman. The legislation is extending existing section 45D to apply to a small businessman- not a corporation- who is trading as an individual or in partnership and who is the target of the type of action which is prohibited under section 45 D. Previously, existing legislation applied only to a company. In this day and age, of course, as we know, large numbers- probably the majority- of small businesses trade in a corporate form as private companies. It so happens that Mr Laidely was trading in that way. But there are still many businessmen who do not trade in that way and they do not have the protection of section 45 D as it stands at the moment. That is why the first object of this legislation is to extend that provision and to make it clear. It provides rights to individual traders and partnerships which are not trading as companies.

The second aspect of this legislation is that the proposed new section 45D is directly designed to cover the situation in which Mr Laidely and his company found themselves. Regretably it appears that the situation may well occur soon again unless the Government takes action. The interests of a small businessman are being ignored by deals being done between, as I said, a large union and a large company. The whole of the Australian community, except I suppose the Opposition and some of its supporters, was outraged by the Laidely case. Mr Laidely ‘s supplies, the lifeline of his business, were simply cut off as a result of a deal that was done. That is the second object of this legislation.

The third object of the legislation is to give a person in the position of Mr Laidely a right to be heard in negotiations and in conciliation processes that may well take place and I hope will take place in these situations. A disgraceful situation occurred when Mr Laidely’s interests were being dealt with without his representation and without the representation of his association. A large number of other people were clearly threatened by this type of situation that could arise. The Government, understanding the deep and widespread concern in the community about these matters, acted as quick as possible.

There have been complaints about the speed with which the legislation has been brought into the Parliament. The fact of the matter is that the Government was virtually being pressured by community demand that action should be taken to deal with the situation that had arisen in the Laidely case. The Government, if anything, would have liked to have been able to act even more quickly. We make no apology. Certainly, we have no degree of shame whatever for taking the actions we have taken in this matter. Despite the opposition of the Labor Party and, incredibly, the opposition of the Australian Democrats who try to present themselves as the great friends and supporters of small businessmen in this community, I trust that the Senate will give this Bill the very speedy passage which it thoroughly deserves.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 33

NOES: 26

Majority…… 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– by leave-I move:

The intention behind clause 4 of the Bill is to extend the operation of section 45E of the Trade Practices Act to prohibit secondary boycotts of non-corporate persons in circumstances where that extension would be supported by the corporations power under the Constitution. The Government clearly indicated that this was its intention when the Bill was introduced into the Parliament. It was drawn to the attention of the Government when the legislation was introduced that clause 4 of the Bill as drafted may have had unintended effects. The Government is concerned that the amendments to the Trade Practices Act achieve only the intention it is seeking. It has therefore decided to amend clause 4 of the Bill, with consequential amendments to clause 3.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition does not oppose the amendments that have been moved by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack). The matter has been fully dealt with in the contribution made by Senator Evans.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I seek only to ask the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) to spell out in a little more detail how these provisions came to be inserted in the first place. He referred to unintended effects, but is it not the case that the initial draft of this provision did not achieve even the intended effect of extending the operation of the clause to noncorporate bodies, quite apart from its effect in extending its application to primary boycotts? Can the Attorney-General give us an assurance that the effects were unintended and that this was not an exercise in crude deception of the Parliament, which is manifestly what it looks like at first reading?

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I totally reject the imputation made by Senator Evans. We have learned to live with such imputations from him. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) made the intention quite clear in introducing the legislation. It is a technical legal area, with constitutional problems. Senator Evans ought to be aware of that. We believe that the original provision achieved its purpose but that it was a case of overkill. That was drawn to the attention of an officer of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs by a completely independent source- I understand a private solicitor. The problem had not been foreseen until it was pointed out, and it was for that reason that the amendments were drafted. The matter has also been the subject of consideration by the Solicitor-General. We are quite satisfied now that the amendments achieve the purpose which the Government always intended.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– I have a question relating to proposed new section 80AA, under which the Court is empowered to stay the operation of the injunction. I should like to hear the reason behind it. Why does not the court automatically and in a mandatory way stay the operation of an injunction which has been sought by a party where the conciliation process is sought to be activated? I would like to hear explained why it is that the Court is given a discretion whereby it could maintain the action in the Federal Court if it judged it proper to do so, despite the attempt by the parties to seek conciliation.

Senator DURACK:
West AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I find that a rather strange question to come from a lawyer because it is hardly consistent to grant a legal right to people to pursue a course of action in a court and then say that that court has to stay proceedings or end up giving a particular decision. It is basically inconsistent with the right that is granted. The Government is providing a certain alternative procedure which may be available and which I hope will be effective. But there may well be cases where it is not appropriate and parties should be entitled to have the matter argued in the hearing of their case. That is why the matter is left to the discretion of the Court.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2689

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION (BOYCOTTS) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 May, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Conciliation and Arbitration (Boycotts) Amendment Bill 1980 and the Trade Practices (Boycotts) Amendment Bill 1 980 were dealt with cognately. The Opposition will not call for a division on this matter on the basis that the previous division is an indication of the Opposition ‘s attitude in relation to this Bill, because they are Bills which fit together. In those circumstances the Opposition will not call for a division but it is totally opposed to both pieces of legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

-My question relates to proposed section 88DE, which relates to parties. It seems from sub-section 88de (c) that it is possible for an organisation of which any employer is a member to be a party to proceedings. I take it that that would include chambers of commerce and peak organisations of employers. I wonder why the Government has not sought to have the Australian Council of Trade Unions, for example, an equal party to the proceedings before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Why is it that the hierarchy of organisations to which the employer may belong can be represented in these conciliation proceedings but not the ACTU, which may have as real an interest and as much to contribute by way of conciliation, as shown by the record of the officers of the ACTU?

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

- Senator Tate has raised a question in relation to proposed subsection 88DE (c). The organisations represented are organisations of employers. I think the point of the complaint is that there is reference to organisations of which employers are members. However, there can be present such other persons as the Commission by order specifies, so the concern of Senator Tate could be dealt with under that clause.

Senator Tate:

– You are saying it is not automatic but depends on an order of the Commission, which I take it is purely discretionary.

Senator Georges:

– It is automatic on the one hand, but not on the other.

Senator DURACK:

-I think that that is the position.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– Are we to be told why the full hierarchy of employer organisations may be automatically present but the presence of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which by its record has a good role in conciliation in this type of dispute, has to rely on a specific order of the Commission?

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I do not know that there is anything more to say on the matter. That is the position if the Australian Council of Trade Unions wants to be represented. It usually shows a fair degree of reluctance to be involved in that sort of discussion. If it wanted to be involved I could not imagine that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission would exclude it from being concerned.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– It is obvious that the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) is discomfitted. I believe that he accepts the point. I wonder if he could say so for the sake of the record. That might assist the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to use its discretion from time to time. It is obvious that the point Senator Tate has raised is a reasonable one. If the Attorney-General were to accept that, it would reinforce the Commission’s discretion, or at least give it a guide that it is the wish of the Senate that the automatic inclusion of the employer organisations should pass across to the employee organisations.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I make it quite clear to the Committee that the employees’ organisation, in connection with the employment of any of its members about whom dispute has arisen, is automatically represented, and so are organisations of employers. There is a discretion to allow organisations such as the Australian Council of Trade Unions to come in. I do not think that there is any need to be concerned about any difficulty in such a body being represented if it really wanted to be involved in conciliation..

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Perhaps the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) could put it on record that in the event of there being suggestions of discrimination under this particular clause the Government would exercise its powers to ensure that equal opportunity is given to both sides under those circumstances.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– Certainly the Government would expect that that would be the case. Some honourable senators have expressed concern about it. I will refer to the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) the fact that concern has been expressed.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2690

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– I bring up the eighteenth report of the Publications Committee.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 2690

WHALE PROTECTION BILL 1980

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 21 May on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– In general terms the Opposition welcomes this legislation. The prime objective of achieving an active policy on the protection of whales world-wide is something that conservationists have striven for through the parties in this chamber. We have fought hard for it over a long time. I think we can congratulate ourselves and our allies for what has been achieved. The turning point occurred prior to the 1977 national election when, perhaps fortunately for the cause that we were espousing, the major parties and some of the smaller parties decided at national conferences to rivet into their policies the objective of the protection of whales. At the meeting of my party in Perth a certain degree of evangelistic effort was needed to convince some people of our cause. Those of us who have been involved in conservation causes over the last four or five years know that because of the tightening employment situation it is not hard at times for people to claim that the goal being sought on a conservation basis can spell trouble for jobs; but that is water under the bridge.

On behalf of my party- I think that what I have to say will be endorsed by all honourable senators- I pay tribute to conservationists such as Tony Gregory, Jodie Adams and Henrietta Kaye for the role they played in Project Jonah, the Greenpeace organisation and other groups. The campaign they waged was a magnificent effort. There is no question about that. They deserve our full commendation. As a matter of fact, I know that they have all been applauded overseas for the way in which they have handled the situation. On a personal basis- I think my New South Wales colleagues would agree with me on this- the only successful conservation campaign that I can think of was the Colong Caves struggle of some years ago. It was successfully orchestrated. That commendation was well earned by those people.

Insofar as the Senate is concerned, I remember the agitation before an Estimates committee to ensure that at future International Whaling Commission deliberations the Department of Science and the Environment should be represented. Following the creation of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, that is an ideal assignment for the Department. We have been fortunate in that originally we had as our representative on the IWC, Dr Boden, who is now serving with distinction as the curator of the Botanic Gardens in Canberra. He was succeeded by Professor Overton. Both gentlemen represented Australia very well. I do not wish to disparage the representatives of the Department of Primary Industry but there is no doubt in my mind that when they had a monopoly on overseas representation their heart was not in the cause of conservation. The changes that have taken place have certainly put Australia on the offensive in that role.

This legislation provides for the protection of whales and other cetaceans. We know that with this cause as with many other causes one may win a battle but there is always a struggle ahead. To digress briefly, I would like to see the number of whales multiply, particularly those species that have been in short supply. At the conference on Antarctica various ideas about the exploitation of krill were discussed. That is a battle for the future. The migratory trends of whales into the warm waters of our 200-mile off-shore economic zone and their return to the polar regions poses problems about whether whales can be ambushed as they leave our 200-mile off-shore economic zone.

In that regard I say that I believe that, independent of what I would call the penal provisions on the control of the responsibility of the Australian citizens, there will always be a more effective role for the Royal Australian Navy in patrol work. I do not make that suggestion in the hope that we will get conservation guardianship on the cheap. I know of an operation in the Caribbean called ‘Green Turtle’ in which one of the sloops of the United States Navy was used in a conveyance system. I believe that things like that can be done by our Navy. I know about the problems with the vexed question of 3-mile and 200-mile limits and I know also that the States have certain responsibilities in that regard.

Although the main thrust of this legislation is directed at the protection of whales, we also have the problem of the protection of seals. At a hearing of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment some very valuable evidence was given on this subject by Dr Ling, the curator at the Adelaide Museum. He is a worldwide authority on seals, including seals in the Antarctic region and those in Canadian waters. I have deliberately injected the question of the protection of seals because, hand in hand with our protection of whales, we will certainly have to be vigilant about ensuring that people do not try to destroy the seals on the side on the basis that they are threatening fish harvesting. I hope that the Government will take full cognisance of Dr Ling ‘s evidence.

It is the way of nature that the seal population virtually falls into two groups. One group obviously originated in the Antarctic region and the other in South African waters. Fortunately, due to the mating habits of the two groups, they are segregated in such a way that there will not be a’ heavy multiplication of them or a high birth rate which may justify a culling project. I say that because as recently as four or five weeks ago I was at the marine college at Beauty Point in Tasmania and several members of the Merchant Service Guild expressed the view that we have to be very earful about the protection of seals and dolphins as well as whales.

Having regard to the objectives of this legislation, we know that Australia has a very difficult job before it at future IWC meetings in trying to convince the major whaling countries of Japan and Russia to change their attitudes to the taking of whales. I do not underestimate that difficult task because of what happened about two years ago when I was in Japan with a parliamentary delegation and spoke to members of all the major parties. When one gets into a protein discussion with them one finds that they are rather obstinate. That comment applies equally to the Soviet Union. There is nothing more disgusting than to see the carnage created by what I call floating abattoirs. Australians probably have to bear a certain degree of stigma because of the actions of the sealers of a century ago or so. We have lifted our ideals and some restitution has been made as far as conservation is concerned.

We welcome to the full the declaration of the 200-mile off-shore zone. I reiterate the point about the missionary efforts in relation to the countries I have named. In addition to them, there are the maverick nations which go their own way. I know that the purpose of the legislation is to discourage Australians from being involved in this bloody practice. I refer to an article from the Economist of 3-9 May 1 980 in the Science and Technology section called ‘Profits from not killing whales’. Of course this article refers to efforts made by a number of American firms to provide adequate substitution in lieu of whale byproducts. I seek leave to have the extract from the London Economist incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Profits from not killing whales

Bacteria and a desert bush could help save the sperm whale from extinction, providing effective substitutes for whale oil. Cheap substitutes, too. A third alternative, a complex blend of fatty acids and esters made by Witco in Britain, has not sold well, because it is more expensive than the whale-based product.

Since the United States banned imports of sperm-whale oil in 1970, American companies have been hungry for good substitutes for use in cosmetics and as fine industrial lubricants. A cheap alternative could prompt other countries to get virtuous about not using sperm-whale oil. Commercial money is now going into two promising developments: genetically engineered bugs and the jojoba plant.

Backed by Standard Oil of Indiana, Cetus Corporation of California is pioneering the genetic engineering approach. The idea is to use genetically modified bacteria to improve on nature. The bugs would produce oils with the qualities that make sperm-whale oil attractive: a fairly constant viscosity, over a wide range of temperatures, and an excellent ability to protect metals from wear. They would even have one advantage over whale oil. The oils could be tailor-made to fit users’ requirements, appropriate bugs producing oils of different viscosities and compositions.

Standard Oil reckons the market for such lubricants could be worth anywhere from $ 10m to $100m a year- if the Cetus bugs perform and scaling up the process to commercial production proves practicable. But the two companies admit that at least five more years of research is needed before the bacteria can hope to oil the wheels of industry.

Jojoba also needs more development. About 4,500 acres of the crop have already been planted in the south-western United States and in Mexico. But little of extraction is mature enough to begin producing oil seeds- jojoba needs five years to mature. So nobody is sure how the economies of largescale production will work out.

The target is a price of $ 1 per 5 lb of jajoba oil. That may prove optimistic. To achieve it, two problems need to bc solved. The first is finding a mechanical method of harvesting the seeds. The answer here may lie in modifications to conventional grape-picking machines. The second problem- extracting the oil from the seeds- is tougher.

Crushing machines can easily get out the first 50 per cent of the oil. But chemical extraction is needed to get at the rest, and, so far, there have been problems in removing the residual solvent from the leached-out seed mash. That matters. The mash has a 30 percent protein content. Growers want to be able to sell it for animal feed.

But they are optimistic that these problems can be overcome- say, in five years’ time. And, if so, they reckon that jojoba could not only supply animal feed and oil for industry but also the first zero-calorie cooking oil.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I do not think that point can be hammered too strongly because it is quite obvious that if the profit is removed we will not have what I call mammal mutilators who are moving around after a quick dollar. I do not want to get into a long ideological argument on the profit motives, but regardless of all the supervision in the world, if people think they can get a quick killing they will be involved in it. I know that a number of honourable senators have received correspondence from Project Jonah about some of the difficulties. When whales come into Australian waters- we boast that we are the Land of the Southern Cross- they are in warm waters and they are lulled into a sense of false security. I know that some excellent novels have been written. We can call it fiction and it has dealt with the carnage. But probably sometimes it is only by fiction that we can get the message across. I believe that today in the Senate we are all entrusted with a responsibility. I do not know of a campaign that went right across the land because people wanted a change in attitude.

I think over 68 per cent or more of Australians are crying out for that change which is largely embodied in this legislation. I know there is the other aspect about the legislation. When certain legislation is brought in, sometimes we have the feeling that although we have won people over we have pressed them too far.

There was a man in the United States Congress named Thaddeus Stevens and in the reconstruction after the American Civil War certain terms were put on the southern states, the Confederates. From my background I would have little in common with the Confederate cause in the United States. But with a bit of hindsight, looking back on the era, one may ask: When a cause is won is one a little magnanimous? I say that because my party has had considerable heartburn about civil liberties. I know that we can create mythical stories about an Australian boy who is on a working tour in Europe. He is a little short of money and he finds himself on a Norwegian whaler. What could happen when he returns to Australia? I read with interest the debates in the other place between my colleague the honourable member for Robertson, Mr Barry Cohen, and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). It is one of those areas in which things are sometimes learnt by trial and error. I know that my colleagues in another place are inclined to believe that sometimes with governments some legislation which is a little vexatious is held in a deep freeze. This is one of the problems that has exercised our minds. I will comment further on this matter at a later stage in my speech.

I refer to the question of temptation in peddling drugs and all these sorts of things. I know Senator Puplick in particular is a keen cinema addict. He would know of the film called Midnight Express. I have a pretty poor opinion of people who peddle drugs. But there can be a situation where somebody gets into a jam and then, of course, the roof falls on them. These are some of the problems with which we are confronted. As I have said we applaud the Government on this matter. This is an issue which goes back prior to the last election. Had there not been a bipartisan attitude the government of the day would probably have been a bit apprehensive. I think the conservationists in both parties probably nailed their careers in some way when they forced issues, but they were successful. I think it is a healthy manifestation of democracy when lobbyists can come here, get to us and raise these matters. There is nothing objectionable about that. Although there may be differences in emphasis I think the outcome of this debate tonight will certainly justify the efforts that they have made.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I will briefly recapitulate the arguments that I advanced before the suspension of the sitting in relation to this whaling legislation. I traversed the developments- the united front, I suppose we could call it- of people of various parties and organisations which created a political climate in which the legislation before us has now become a reality with a reasonable reception from the public. We welcome this legislation and accept the fact that there has to be a intensification of evangelistic zeal to convince the Soviet Union and Japan that they have to dispense with the utilisation of whale products. I believe that the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation has a role to play in relation to the supply of protein. Also, there may have to be greater world surveillance in relation to the pirate whaler who will be around for a while.

I get back to my original theme. With the development of whale substitutes and the removal of the profit motive, we will reach the millennium to which we have been striving for so long. I feel that then we will all be satisfied. I said that the battle will not necessarily be won. We will probably have competition for resources including krill, but that is a battle of the future. I paid a well-deserved tribute before the suspension of the sitting to what I called the conservation groups in the big league. I know that my New South Wales colleagues would say ‘amen’ to my comment. I have never known a crusade involving so many people at the grass roots level. When I was going through my papers before commencing my remarks again, I noticed a small newsletter from the Whale and Dolphin Coalition of 163 New South Head Road, Edgecliff. There are many groups like that. I think it is a healthy sign of parliamentary democracy when tonight there is a bipartisan approach on the part of the major political parties.

Before the suspension of the sitting I had a very difficult question to consider- that is, whether the Opposition would proceed with its amendment. I repeat that the parliamentary Labor Party will not play second fiddle to anyone in relation to its obligations and responsibilities in the field of civil liberties. Of course, events change from day to day. Like other honourable senators I have had numerous telephone conversations with people in the various capital cities. I understand- it has been confirmed and I had to re-check it- that major civil liberties groups are satisfied that our fears about the abuse of power are groundless. Obviously, that removes the need for the amendment in the form suggested by my colleague, the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) in the other place.

I think it was significant that when the honourable member for Robertson spoke, he pointed out that we had some fears. We wondered whether it might take 12 months for trouble to ferment. When Professor Ovington goes overseas, I would like to believe that he is not representing a Liberal Government; he is representing Australians. That means that he is also representing members of the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats. For that reason, we are not proceeding with our amendment. We believe that our responsibility is that of conservationists- we have been in the vanguard of this cause- and we want to make that point very clear. We take the Government up on the fact that the major achievement of the legislation, is the 200-mile off-shore zone. There is a lot of flushing out to be done. I know there are a lot of honourable senators who want to make sound contributions to this debate. But I feel that I should make my position on behalf of the Labor Party Opposition perfectly clear. We all know the old saying: It is the poor who get the blame. If the fears that I expressed that some Australian was unwittingly a pawn in some breach of the legislation, we could go to the Minister and ask for clemency. On the other hand, we do not say that this is the ultimate legislative situation. It is quite obvious that in order to protect the whale there has to be action by the Government in other areas. I pay tribute to the shadow Minister, Mr Barry Cohen, and in addition to the honourable Tom Uren. At our Perth conference we had a lot of work to do in order to convert people to this cause. Speaking for Mr Cohen and for the rest of us, we would not like to have on our consciences any delay so that legislation was held back until August. Time is not on our side. The communique that we received from Tony Gregory gives us a sense of apprehension if these pirate whalers were waiting in ambush when the whales migrated from our warm currents back into the Antarctic regions. We do not want to be a party to what I would call mammal mutilation. I have put this matter on behalf of the Opposition in a responsible way because I said that the success of it has been due to a bipartisan approach. If people argue on precedent I could reverse the argument because I believe one has to take out some form of insurance if one is to rebut an argument. I think Government senators would well know that on a number of occasions my colleague, Senator Bishop, has advanced amendments to the Commonwealth compensation Act that the Opposition thought were better than the provisions in the existing legislation. To be quite frank about it, the Government said it would not accept our amendment. Probably, if we attempted to delay the legislation, in conjunction with other people, we would have done a disservice to the trade union affiliatesCommonwealth public servants in the main. In the same way, we will be accused of holding back an overdue reform in relation to whaling protection.

I conclude on this point: I refer the Senate to David Kirkwood who was a Scottish Labour M.P. in the middle 1930s. I emphasise the fact that he was of the Opposition party. As the member for Clydeside in Great Britain, he agitated that that country should embark on a building program primarily involving the Queen Elizabeth and the Queen Mary. It is now history that those ships were constructed. David Kirkwood never became a Minister; he was never in a government of the day. He died in 1944. 1 quote him because I think, without being at all egotistical, this is the way the Opposition saw the position. David Kirkwood said:

The true work of the rebel is not to cause unnecessary or harmful disorder but show the people where injustice exists and to convince them that it need not exist. When he has succeeded in doing that others will remove the injustice and claim the honour of doing so. They are welcome to it.

That is the important thing as far as the Opposition is concerned. We have approached this matter in a bipartisan way. In agitation on the streets, we have been shoulder to shoulder with people from other parties. We put the amendment forward in that spirit, hoping that the legislation would be enacted speedily. I hope the Government will be vigilant in respect of our fears regarding civil liberties. At the same time, the Opposition will support the Government, but we hope that in the other areas in which work needs to be done this will not be ignored.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

-On 1 December 1978 Sir Sydney Frost presented his report to the Government on the future of whaling in Australia. As honourable senators will know, that report advocated that Australia should abandon the commercial whaling industry and should seek to get other countries around the world to join it in a total prohibition of whaling. On 29 March 1979 1 was given the opportunity in this chamber to move a motion in the following terms:

That the Senate calls upon the Government to implement, in full, and at an early date, the recommendations contained in Whales and Whaling, the Report of the Independent Inquiry conducted by the Honourable Sir Sydney Frost, presented to the Prime Minister on 1 December 1978.

In moving that motion, I had the support of colleagues on this side of the chamber, particularly Senator Missen, and colleagues on the other side of the chamber, particularly Senator Mulvihill, and other members of his party such as the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) in the other place. As Senator Mulvihill has said, this is an issue on which the parties have been in substantial agreement from a very early date.

I should like to take this opportunity to record my appreciation and tribute to the people who have worked in Project Jonah, people such as Tony Gregory and Henrietta Kaye, who not only have demonstrated their concern on this subject but also the effectiveness of a community-based organisation achieving real change through the democratic process as we know it. The award made recently to them by the Sierra Club for their outstanding activities was one that was certainy due to them and one that I think they very much appreciated. I am pleased to say that in accepting the award in the United States, Mrs Kaye, on behalf of Project Jonah, was kind enough to mention Senator Mulvihill, Senator Missen and myself in her remarks.

I think it should also go on the record that one of the prime movers in achieving the position in which we find ourselves has been the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), whose personal interest and intervention in this matter has been of considerable importance. This legislation, although entitled the Whale Protection Bill, also protects other mammals in the order cetacea, and in its definition clauses specifically refers to the sub-family of mysticeti and odontoceti. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table taken from the Frost report showing which those species are. They are essentially dolphins and porpoises.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Sub-order Mysticeti (baleen whales- baleen plates or sieves’ in mouth, no teeth, double blowhole, symmetrical skull).

Family Balaenopteridae (rorqual whales- refers to series of grooves, or folds, along throat; have distinct dorsal fin).

Genus Balaenoptera- Balaenoptera acutorostrataminke whale (up to 9 metres). * Balaenoptera borealis- sei whale (18 metres).Balaenoptera edeni- Bryde’s whale ( 15 metres).*Balaenoptera musculus- blue whale (30 metres). *Balaenoptera physalus-fin whale (25 metres).

Genus Megaptcra - *Megaptera novaeangliae humpback whale ( 14 metres).

Family Balaenidae (right whales- long baleen plates, no dorsal fin or throat grooves).

Genus Balaena- Balaena mysticetus- bowhead or Greenland right whale ( 1 8 metres).

Genus Eubalaena ( 1 )-*Eubalaena glacialis- right whale or black right whale ( 16 metres).

Genus Caperea-*Caperea marginata- pygmy right whale (6 metres).

Family Eschrichtiidae- Genus Eschrichtius- Eschrichtius robustus- gray whale ( 1 5 metres).

Sub-order Odontoceti (toothed whales, simple conical teeth, single blowhole, asymmetrical skull ).

Family Physeteridae (sperm whales- blowhole on left side of head, prominent teeth on lowerjaw).

Genus Physeter- *Physeter catodon- sperm whale (18 metres).

Family Kogiidae (pygmy sperm whales).

Genus Kogia-Kogia breviceps- pygmy sperm whale (4 metres).Kogia simus- dwarf sperm whale (2.5 metres).

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)- Genus BerardiusBerardius bairdii- Baird’s beaked whale (13 metres). *Berardius arnuxii- Arnoux’s beaked whale ( 1 1 metres).

Genus Hyperoodon- Hyperoodon ampullatus- northern bottlenosed whale (9 metres).*Hyperoodon planifronssouthern bottlenosed whale (9 metres).

Genus Ziphius-*Ziphius cavirostris- Cuviers’ beaked whale (6 metres).

Genus Tasmacetus- Tasmacetus shepherdi- Shepherd ‘s beaked whale (6 metres).

Genus Mesoplodon-Mesoplodon mirus- True’s beaked whale (5 metres).Mesoplodon hectori- Hector’s beaked whale (5 metres).Mesoplodon layardii- strap-toothed whale (6 metres).Mesoplodon grayi- camperdown whale (4 metres). Mesoplodon bidens- Sowerby’s beaked whale (5 metres). Mesoplodon ginkgodens- Japanese beaked whale (6 metres). Mesoplodon carlhubbsi- Hubb’s beaked whale (5 metres). Mesoplodon stejnegeri- Stejneger’s beaked whale (6 metres).Mesoplodon bowdoiniAndrew’s beaked whale (4.5 metres).Mesoplodon densirostris- Blainville’s beaked whale (4.5 metres). Mesoplodon europaeus- Antillean beaked whale (4 metres).

1 ) Some whale taxonomists consider that the genus Eubalaena contains two distinct species, as follows:

Eubalaena glacialis- northern right whale.

*Eubalaena australis- southern right whale.

Genus Indopacetus-*Indopacetus pacificus- Pacific beaked whale (6 metres).

Family Monodontidae (white whales), Genus Delphinapterus- Delphinapterus leucas- beluga (5.5 metres).

Genus Monodon- Monodon monoceros- narwhal (4.5 metres).

Family Platanistidae (river or freshwater dolphins), Genus Platanista- Platanista gangetica- susu or Ganges River dolphin (2.5-3 metres), latanista indi- Indus River dolphin (2.5 metres).

Genus Inia- Inia geoffrensis- Amazon River dolphin (3 metres).

Genus Lipotes- Lipotes vexillifer- Chinese lake dolphin (2.4 metres).

Genus Pontoporia- Pontoporia blainvillei- La Plata dolphin ( 1.5 metres).

Family Delphinidae (dolphins- usually have a beak, characteristic triangular dorsal fin).

Genus Lissodelphis- Lissodelphis borealis- northern right whale dolphin (2.5 metres),*Lissodelphis peronisouthern right whale dolphin (2.3 metres).

Genus* Delphinus-*Delphinus delphis- common dolphin (2.3 metres).

Genus Lagenorhynchus- Lagenorhynchus obliquidensPacific white-sided dolphin (2-2.5 metres).

Lagenorhynchus albirostris- white-beaked dolphin (2.5-3 metres),Lagenorhynchus obscurus- dusky dolphin (2 metres), Lagenorhynchus acutus- Atlantic white-sided dolphin (2.7 metres), Lagenorhynchus thicolea- Falkland Island dolphin (2.5 metres),Lagenorhynchus crucigerhourglass dolphin ( 1.8 metres), Lagenorhynchus australisblackchin dolphin (2.2 metres).

Genus Tursiops-*Tursiops truncatus- Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (3-3.5 metres), Tursiops gilli- Pacific bottlenose dolphin (3.5 metres).

Genus Grampus-*Grampus griseus- Risso’s dolphin (4.3 metres).

Genus Lagenodelphis-*Lagenodelphis hosei- Sarawak dolphin (2.5 metres).

Genus Feresa-*Feresa attenuata- pygmy killer whale (2.5 metres).

Genus Cephalorhynchus - Cephalorhynchus commersonii- Commerson’s dolphin (1.6 metres), Cephalorhynchus hectori- Hector’s dolphin (1.8 metres), Cephalorhynchus heavisidii- Heaviside’s dolphin (1.5 metres), Cephalorhynchus eutropia- white-bellied dolphin (1.5 metres).

Genus Orcinus-*Orcinus orca- killer whale ( 9 metres ).

Genus Pseudorca-*Pseudorca crassidens-false killer whale (5.5 metres).

Genus Orcaella-*Orcaella brevirostris- Irrawaddy dolphin (2.1 metres).

Genus Globicephala-Globicephala melaena- longfin pilot whale (6 metres),Globicephala macrorhynchusshortfin pilot whale (6 metres).

Genus Peponocephala-*Peponocephala electra- broadbeaked dolphin or many-toothed blackfish (2.8 metres).

Family Stenidae (other dolphins), Genus Steno-*Steno bredanensis- rough-toothed dolphin (2.5 metres).

Genus Sotalia- Sotalia fluviatilis- Bouto dolphin (1.2 metres), Sotalia brasiliensis- Rio de Janeiro dolphin (1.5 metres), Sotalia guianensis- Guiana River dolphin (1.5 metres).

Genus Sousa- Sousa chinensis- Chinese white dolphin (1.5 metres), borneensis- Borneo borneesis- Borneo white dolphin (2 metres),Sousa lentiginosa- freckled dolphin (2.5 metres),Sousa plumbea- plumbeous dolphin (2.4 metres), Sousa teuszii- Cameroon dolphin (2.3 metres).

Genus Stenella-Stenella coeruleoalba- blue or striped dolphin (2.7 metres),Stenella longirostris- spinning dolphin (2.1 metres),Stenella attenuata (1)- bridled dolphin (2.1 metres),Stenella plagiodon- spotted dolphin (2.2 metres).

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises- lacking in prominent beak, dorsal fin low and triangular).

Genus Phocoena- Phocoena phocoena- harbor porpoise ( 1.8 metres), Phocoena dioptrica- spectacled porpoise ( 1.8 metres), Phoecoena sinus-Gulf of California porpoise ( 1.5 metres), Phocoena spinipinnis-black porpoise (1.5 metres).

Genus Phocoenoides-Phocoenoides dalli- Dall’s porpoise (2.2 metres).

Genus Neophocaena- Neophocaena phocaenoidesblack finless porpoise (1.5 metres).

1 ) Include S. graffmani, S. dubia and S. frontalis in this complex.

Senator PUPLICK:

-I thank the Senate. Unlike the United States Marine Mammals Act, however, the legislation does not go on to include other marine mammals, and in particular the seals and the dugongs. However, these mammals are protected by other pieces of legislation. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a document prepared for me by the National Parks and Wildlife Service showing legislation applicable to the protection of seals and dugongs.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO SEALS AND DUGONG

Seals: New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia, Commonwealth Legislation.

COMMONWEALTH

Seals come within the definition of wildlife in the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. Regulations to implement the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals are being prepared under that Act. Seals would be protected through general wildlife regulations under the NPWC Act 1975.

VICTORIA-seals protected

Wildlife Act 1975, would be enforced under regulations prepared under the Game Act 1958 appears that seals may be killed by fishermen in order to stop damage to fishing gear without enforcement of strict protection.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA- seals protected National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972.

TASMAN IA-protected

Fisheries Act 1959, although this may have recently been changed to include seals under the definition of wildlife under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA- seals protected Fauna Conservation Act 1 970.

NEW SOUTH WALES-seals protected

Fauna Protection Act 1948, National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

Fisheries and Oyster Farms Act 1 935 as amended.

Seals are not excluded from the definition of’fish’ under the Fisheries and Oyster Farms Act 1935, which includes all marine and fresh water animal life other than whales, which are specifically excluded. The effective legislation appears to be the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, with enforcement carried out by New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service officers.

DUGONG: COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATION, QUEENSLAND, NORTHERN TERRITORY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Commonwealth Legislation

Dugong come within the definition of ‘wildlife’ under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 and would be protected under general wildlife regulations made under that Act, when promulgated.

Trade in dugong is subject to strict regulation. By amendment of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations to the Customs Act 1 90 1 -74, all bones, flesh, oil and skin of dugong and goods manufactured wholly or partly from bones, flesh, oil and skin of dugong are prohibited exports.

On 28 June 1977, a notice was published under the Fisheries Act 1 952 prohibiting the taking of dugong for commercial purposes in waters proclaimed under that Act except by the use of a boat for which the Commonwealth licence had been specifically endorsed to authorise such taking. There are no licences currently endorsed for such purposes. Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders taking dugong for the purpose of subsistence for their own communities may continue to do so.

Queensland

Dugong are listed in the Second Schedule to the Fisheries Act 1976, a schedule of protected species. Under earlier legislation there were provisions for subsistence taken by Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in waters in which the Queensland Fisheries legislation applied and similar provisions are thought to apply under the new legislation.

Northern Territory

Under the Northern Territory Fisheries Ordinance, regulations have been made which prohibit the taking of dugong except in waters adjacent to Aboriginal settlements. It is understood that the Fisheries Ordinance has been recently reviewed and confirmation that the provisions of the earlier Ordinance still apply has not yet been received.

Western Australia

Marine mammals are included under the definition of fauna’ in the Fauna Conservation Act 1950-1970. Under that Act, ‘fauna’ is protected throughout the State at all times, unless a notice is published in the Government Gazette modifying that protection. Aboriginals may take dugong for food only.

TAKE OF SMALL CETACEANS

Queensland

Shark meshing operations, catches summarised in Paterson’s paper. Reported to be two to three each year taken for display purposes.

Other incidental take not known, though there may be some in gill nets.

Northern Territory

No reported take of small cetaceans, but there are recent reports of small cetaceans drowned in gill nets, no figures available.

Western Australia

No available figures, but reports of occasional small cetacean shot for bait.

South Australia

No available figures from government sources, but there are reports both of taking of dolphins for bait and of shooting for sport. No estimate available of total take.

New South Wales

No available information, although shark meshing operations are carried out in New South Wales waters. There are also unconfirmed reports of small cetaceans being shot for sport or bait.

Victoria

See attached report from Fisheries and Wildlife Division. Ministry of Conservation, Victoria. No estimate of total take available.

Senator PUPLICK:

– The provisions of this Bill can be summed up as follows: The Bill, subject to certain exemptions, prohibits the killing, injuring, taking or interfering with a whale by any person within the Australian fishing zone, and by the Australians and Australian vessels and aircraft and their crews beyond that zone. It will, as a consequential prohibition, preclude treating or being in possession of a whale taken in contravention of the Act, or unlawfully imported by any person in Australia or in the Australian fishing zone, or by Australians and Australian vessels and aircraft and their crews beyond that zone. Foreign whaling vessels will be precluded from entering Australian ports without permission. The application of the primary offence clauses may, with the consent of the relevant governments, be extended to cover territorial waters adjacent to a State or the Northern Territory. The Bill also deals with the issue, variation and cancellation of permits to take whales for certain specified reasons. These are subject to public comment and may give rise to appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I believe that those two safeguards are important initiatives in conservation legislation, once again allowing full public participation in this matter.

Specific provisions are included for the appointment and powers of inspectors to enforce the legislation, and provision is made to delegate powers to State and Territory as well as Commonwealth officials in accordance with agreed arrangements. Provision is also made for research programs, appropriate regulation-making powers, and certain minor offences of an ancillary nature. For offences against this Bill, the penalties can be quite severe. Some of the penalties range up to $100,000, which is equal to approximately twice the value of a prime whale taken and exploited for commercial purposes.

The other thing this Bill does, and I think does very successfully, is to treat with some intelligent balance the problem that arises in terms of the protection of marine mammals, balanced against the way in which marine mammals can be killed incidentally or accidentally in the process of commercial fishing. This is not a major problem in Australia, as it is in the United States. For instance, in the United States porpoises in particular tend to associate themselves with schools of yellowfin tuna. Where fishing for this yellowfin tuna takes place, it is estimated that accidental kills of dolphins have been very high. For instance, in 1975 the accidental kills were estimated to be about 134,000. By intelligent United States legislation, this has been reduced to a figure of about 14,000 in 1978. These details are given in certain paragraphs of the annual report of the United States Marine Mammal Commission for the calendar year 1978, and I seek leave to have the appropriate paragraphs incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

THE TUNA-PORPOISE ISSUE

The incidental mortality and serious injury of porpoises associated with commercial yellowfin tuna fishing has been the subject of major concern and controversy since passage of the Act. A detailed discussion of the Commission ‘s activities and an historical summary of efforts to resolve the problem are presented in the Commission’s Annual Reports for Calendar Years 1976 and 1977.

The Commission is pleased to report that while much of the controversy has subsided, the substantial progress achieved in 1977 has been continued during 1978. The Commission believes that this progress reflects the value and viability of efforts to achieve the goals of the Act.

The 1978 Fishing Season

As discussed in the Commission’s previous Annual Report, final regulations governing the 1978-1980 fishing seasons were published by the National Marine Fisheries Service in the Federal Register on 23 December 1977 setting declining quotas of 51,945 animals in 1978, 41,610 in 1979 and 3 1 , 1 50 in 1 980. In commenting on the quotas, the Commission noted that they were designed to serve as absolute upper limits and that it was expected that the actual porpoise mortality levels would be substantially below those upper limits. The data available at the end of 1978 indicate that this was, in fact, the case for the 1978 fishing season during which the total incidental porpoise mortality associated with United States commercial yellowfin tuna fishing was 14,243 animals. This record low kill constitutes a substantial reduction from the mortality levels for 1977 and preceding years. For reference, figures for the estimated porpoise mortality associated with the United States tuna fishing vessels since passage of the Act are set forth below:

The significant reduction in porpoise mortality during 1978 is especially encouraging in light of the fact that, as the total porpoise mortality declined, the United States tuna purse seine fishing fleet caught more tuna in 1978 than in 1977, suggesting that the skillful use of effective gear and motivation by fishermen can result in successful fishing operations and substantial reductions in porpoise mortality. It should be noted, however, that the 1978 fishing season appears to have been atypical in some respects. The increased total catch during 1978 was largely the result of an increase in the catch of skipjack tuna which are normally caught without ‘setting on porpoise.’ Of the total yellowfin tuna catch for 1978, only about 40,000 short tons were caught by ‘setting on porpoise,’ as compared to the more typical fishing season during which more than 100,000 short tons are usually caught in sets involving porpoise. In addition, the average kill rate increased from 0.25 porpoise per ton of yellowfin caught in association with porpoise in 1977 to 0.36 in 1978. These factors suggest that some of the reduction in total mortality resulted from peculiarities of the 1978 fishing season during which both skipjack and yellowfin tuna could be caught by the United States fleet without setting on porpoise to a greater extent than during fishing seasons when the fish are associated with porpoises.

These and other aspects of the porpoise mortality reduction efforts will be evaluated when all the data from the 1978 fishing season are available. In the interim, it is expected that the porpoise mortality rates of individual vessels and the United States fleet as a whole will decline as the causes of ‘problem sets’ are identified and resolved and as more vessels are equipped with the required net system and fishermen gain experience and skill in the use of the system.

Senator PUPLICK:

-As I have said, there is no comparable problem in Australia because of the nature of fishing activities. For instance, surveys done among Victorian fishermen indicate that in fact we might be dealing with only some 20 or 30 accidental kills in this fashion each year. A more important way in which marine mammals are accidentally killed is when they are trapped in shark netting around Australian coastlines. This Bill, of course, does nothing about that, and it is appropriate that there should be no interference with that program which is of particular importance around the beaches of Sydney and elsewhere in New South Wales. Nevertheless, it does occasion, particularly in Queensland, the death of a large number of marine mammals. I have had prepared, again by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, a brief paper detailing a survey of the past capture or killing of dolphins and small whales in waters adjacent to the Victorian coast which, together with an article by Robert Paterson from Australian Fisheries in October 1979, which gives details of all these accidental kills, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

Report on a survey of past captures or killing of dolphins and small whales in waters adjacent to the Victorian coast

In June 1978 questionnaires were sent to all professional fishermen, other than abalone divers, working marine waters. One questionnaire sought information on past experience with dolphins and small whales and a second was designed for reporting on any occurrence in the ensuing 12 month period. A one-page illustrated guide ‘The dolphins and small toothed whales of Bass Strait’ was prepared, to assist fishermen in the identification of species encountered.

A total of 1,380 fishermen were contacted and to the end of October 180 questionnaires had been returned. Of these only 20 reported incidental capture or deliberate killing. Of the remainder 3 returns contained strong statements that dolphins were a menace to fishing, 3 stated that dolphins were only a minor problem, and 7 stated that dolphins were not a problem and expressed concern over killing by professional and amateur fishermen. It was clear that only dolphins (Tursiops and Delphinus) were known to the fishermen. Globicephala, Pseudorea, Kogia and Ziphiids have all been recorded from multiple strandings but apparently are rarely encountered at sea or are not recognised.

The following points arise from analysis of the 20 positive returns:

Accidental capture in nets

1 3 reports, plus one of a dolphin snared by the tail in a lobster pot-line.

Areas: Victoria, including Port Phillip Bay and Gippsland Lakes; New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia.

Species involved: 10 reports of Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis); 2 reports of Bottlenosed Dolphin (Tursiops); 2 reports uncertain.

Number taken: 1-3.

Frequency: once only, 10 reports; seldom, 2 reports: often, i.e. most years, 1 ; routinely, i.e. every year, 1 .

Killing to use as bait

6 reports.

Areas: Victoria and Tasmania.

Species: 5 reports of Delphinus; 1 report of Tursiops.

Number taken: 1-3.

Frequency: once only, 3 reports; seldom, 3 reports.

Method employed: gun or harpoon.

Reason given: in all cases because ofshortage of usual baits for rock-lobster pots.

Value as bait: good, 3 reports; not good, 2; no comment, 1.

Killing to protect fishing

9 reports.

Areas: Victoria (specific mention of Apollo Bay, Barwon Heads, Cape Schank, Lorne and Pt Lonsdale); New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia.

Species involved: 4 reports of Delphinus; 2 reports of Tursiops; 4 uncertain.

Number killed: most fishermen stated 1 or 2, but one report stated 10 were killed in one day. One fisherman commented that shooting usually frightened away the rest of the group.

Frequency: seldom, 3 reports; often, 4 reports; routinely, 1 report; not stated, 1 report.

Method employed: gun.

Fishery affected by dolphins: in all cases fishermen were taking barracouta (Leionura atun).

Utilization: used for bait: 2 reports; not used, 6 reports; not stated,1 report.

Intensity of the problem: serious, 7 reports; not serious, 1 report; not stated, 1 report.

Comments

Because of the low percentage of questionnaires returned ( 13 per cent) and the very low number of positive reports, the result must be interpreted with caution.

The fact that one fisherman (refer 2f) carried a harpoon in his boat suggests that the taking of dolphin for bait was not fortuitous. Hearsay reports suggest that killing for bait may be more widespread than indicated by this survey but no additional hard evidence is available.

In respect of killing to protect fishing reports of the numbers shot (refer 3d) may not have been entirely candid. I have on record one eye-witness account of approximately 30 dolphins (species not determined) shot by one fisherman in one encounter with a large school in Bass Strait. The animals were not frightened off, in fact their strong succouring or care-giving behaviour was largely responsible for the ease with which they were shot. As a wounded animal sank two others would bring it to the surface where they in turn were shot.

With the passing of the Wildlife Act 1975 all cetaceans are now protected in Victorian waters, i.e. within 3 miles of the coast and of all islands in Bass Strait to the north of 39°12’S. However, as with seals, the Fisheries and Wildlife Division does accept that fishermen should be able to protect their gear, if necessary by shooting dolphins actually raiding lines or nets.

Robert M. Warneke

Senior Research Officer

SHARK MESHING TAKES A HEAVY TOLL OF HARMLESS MAKIN ANIMALS

by Robert Paterson*

Should the use of shark nets be restricted and warning devices fitted to nets in some areas to reduce the toll of other marine creatures accidentally killed?

Protective gill-netting off Queensland beaches has killed thousands of sharks since it was introduced in the early 1960s. But the netting also has claimed thousands of other marine creatures as well, particularly turtles, harmless rays, dugong and dolphins.

The current shark-meshing program began in Queensland in 1962 after fatal attacks at Noosa Heads and Mackay the previous December. Since then there have been no attacks on bathers near protected areas.

However there is now mounting concern at the number of marine animals, some of the legally protected in Queensland, being killed incidentally in these shark nets.

Shark meshing to protect bathers was introduced in Australia in 1 937 following an inquiry appointed by the New South Wales Government in 1934. It recommended an extensive meshing program, initially from Broken Bay to Port Hacking so that the main metropolitan beaches of Sydney were protected. Meshing also was introduced at Durban in South Africa in 1952.

In Queensland the Government decided the best protection would be meshing, together with baited lines in areas unsuited to nets. (The NSW inquiry had recommended against baited lines, arguing they would attract additional sharks.) The theory of protection is that, by a progressive reduction in the shark population, the probability of an attack is lowered.

The whole surfing population is not protected, because of the multiple swimming sites available and the different pattern of surfing that has emerged since the early 1960s. Fourwheeldrive vehicles have made previously isolated beaches accessible, and the increasing popularity of surf skis and boards brings groups of riders near headland areas. The meshing program is designed for the earlier pattern of surfing, with large numbers of bathers in confined and patrolled areas, close to shore and swimming mainly in the middle of the day.

In Queensland protection extends from Cairns ( 16° 5 1 ‘ S) to the Gold Coast (27°58’ S), whereas Sydney lies at 33°55’ S and Durban 29° 53’ S. Differing marine environments are involved and species affected, other than sharks, vary significantly between these three different areas.

Whether illegal or indirect human action are greater destroyers of protected species than the meshing program remains an unanswered question. What is certain is that the losses caused by meshing can be measured.

There is a danger, particularly with dugong, that widespread netting in particular areas will prevent or at least hinder replenishment from other areas. It is also possible that the continuing destruction of turtles and dugongs by netting could ultimately destroy the populations in the relevant areas irrespective of the hazards of illegal capture and indirect destruction.

Whales, dolphins, dugongs and turtles are protected in Queensland, and there is a penalty of $ 1 ,000 for each animal killed illegally and possible forfeiture of any vessel or gear used. (Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders living in communities in north Queensland are permitted to take turtles and dugong for food but research suggests this region still has large numbers of dugong.)

PROTECTED SPECIES TAKEN

The following tables, compiled from Queensland Department of Harbours and Marine records, show the numbers of dugong, dolphins and turtles meshed. Turtle and dolphin species are not identified. The shark fishing contractors are not required to have more than lay knowledge in catch identification.

Dugong

It has been reported that of 158 dugong caught in the Townsville area from August 1964 to July 1971 only seven survived.

Turtles

About 50 per cent of turtles meshed in the Townsville area are released safely, according to reports from that area. But the large leatherback turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea) on display in the Queensland Museum was taken in the shark net at Alexandra Headland in south-eastern Queensland. The International Union for the conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) regards this species are critically endangered.

Dolphin

Nine dolphins were caught throughout the State in 1977-78 but regional figures are not available.

Humpback whales

Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) move close to the south Queensland coast during their northern migration (mid-June till late-July) and again during their southern migration (mid-September till late-October).

Of the estimated 10,000 humpback whales off eastern Australia before whaling began probably only some 500 survived in 1962. The International Whaling Commission banned their capture in the southern hemisphere in 1963. From observations at Point Lookout on North Stradbroke Island off Brisbane I believe the small residual stock is increasing. But any danger to this stock is to be regarded seriously.

There are two reports of whale entanglement in shark nets on the Gold Coast. An adult was trapped near Southport in about 1972. It was released apparently unharmed. Another adult was trapped in the Surfers Paradise net on September 24, 1977. It was released but a recently-born whale calf was washed ashore dead at Surfers Paradise on September 26. lt is reasonable to think its death was related to the adult’s meshing two days before.

Rays

Rays are not formally identified by the shark fishing contractors but Mr E. M. Grant, special adviser in marine biology to the Department of Harbours and Marine, has observed mainly these species: cowtail ray (Dasyatis sephen); long-tailed ray (Himantura uarnak); brown stingray (Dasyatis fluviorum); coachwhip ray (Himantura granulata); spotted eagle-ray (Aetobatus narinari): and pigmy devil ray (Mobula diabolus). (Rays are not protected species.)

FACTORS INFLUENCING CATCHES

There are two extreme views. Some people believe the protection of humans from the possibility of shark attack is of paramount importance and that incidental losses of marine animals is inconsequential.

Others might feel man is an invader of the sea and should be prepared to risk the statistically unlikely event of a shark attack. Some regard man’s destruction of innocent animals, although in this case unintentional, as wrong.

The moderate position is to recognise the value of the protective program to bathers but look for ways to reduce the incidental killing of marine animals.

It is valuable to analyse catch figures. The program is continuous and losses that might seem small in the short term could ultimately be serious. The total population of the captured protected species and rays is not known and estimates by capture tag release programs are expensive and time consuming. Unfortunately the proportion of the total stock that the meshing losses comprise can only be guessed at, but it is probably significant.

Number of nets used

Local variation of net siting

Generally the detailed siting of nets is left to the contractor. However siting was changed to avoid major concentrations of dugong following their initial high death rate in nets near Magnetic Island (Townsville) in 1964-65. Dugong losses in this area continue and researchers have indicated the need for further research into population dynamics. No other information is available to indicate that nets elsewhere have been sited specifically to avoid populations of protected animals.

Depth setting of net

In the early stage of the program nets were set to the seabed and this brought an initial high capture of rays, which in turn were attacked by sharks, severely damaging nets. Consequently nets were set so that they did not extend to the seabed and this lowered the capture rate of rays. However nets set in shallow areas might occasionally reach the seabed in varying weather and tide conditions.

Avoidance reaction

Marine animals can avoid static hazards such as traps and fixed nets after initial high losses. This is a factor that should be considered. After the drastic loss of dugong near Townsville in 1964-65 most caught after that were immature. The most likely explanation was not an avoidance reaction by more mature animals but recruitment of young animals from other areas.

Dolphin losses, particularly in southern Queensland where they are the most severe, continue at a stable rate. Their age is unknown but dolphins should be amongst the most successful marine animals likely to ‘ learn ‘ the danger of static hazards.

Reducing incidental kills

Drumlines verses meshing

An analysis of species caught in the Townsville area from 1964-70 by nets and lines was made by biologist G. E. Heinsohn indicate lines were as effective as meshing in taking tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier), whalers (Eulamia macrura) and black-tip whalers (Eulamia spallanzi). However few hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna lewini) were taken by lines.

Expert evidence given to the NSW inquiry suggested whaler and tiger sharks were the most dangerous species and that the hammerhead was much less dangerous. Indeed the hammerhead shark has not been implicated in any Australian attack. But the table shows the hammerhead is the most common shark species taken in the meshing program.

If lines catch the most dangerous species just as effectively as nets why not reduce the number of nets used, and set no nets in new areas, until a survey is made of the local population of turtles, dugong and dolphins?

If a record of species and size of sharks caught by nets and lines was kept, further decisions on the use of each method could be assessed more accurately. The only protection at Bundaberg is drumlines and no dugongs or turtles were killed by these lines in 1 977-78.

Warning systems on nets

Most dolphin kills, and the two recorded humpback whale meshings, have been in southern Queensland. Perhaps nets here could be fitted with warning devices. Entanglement of humpbacks in cod-fishing nets off Newfoundland in Canada prompted research into sound warning systems attached to the nets. Humpbacks off Newfoundland will avoid nets fitted with a device called a ‘pinger’. (They cost about SUS180 each and are available from He lie Engineering Inc., 7198 Convoy Court, San Diego, California 92 1 1 1 USA.).

Winter net removal

The author V. M. Coppleson (Shark Attack) studied sea temperatures at shark attack sites and concluded there was little risk of attack when the sea temperature was below about 20° C (68° F). From this he established a ‘timetable1 of likely shark attacks. Although there have been exceptions most attacks have followed this timetable.

Tropic of Capricorn north-All months of the year

Southern Queensland- November-May

Newcastle- December-April

Sydney- December-April

Adelaide- December-March

Melbourne- January-March

Bass Strait and Tasmania- January

Department of Harbour and Marine figures show that the five months June to October 1977 produced only 18.7 per cent of the year’s shark catch in the Gold Coast, Point Lookout and near north coast region.

This suggests nets could be removed from southern Queensland beaches from June to October with little risk to bathers and little change in the annual shark catch.

There would be two benefits: a cost-saving in contracts: and elimination of their threat to both migratory (humpback whales) and non-migratory protected species for a substantial period of the year.

The Queensland Government’s program to protect bathers from possible shark attack now covers a wide area of the State. Total population of animals unintentionally captured are not known so the overall significance of the losses cannot be established.

It is recognised that preservation of endangered species throughout their known range is desirable and in this regard regional losses of dugongs and turtles are important. As an example turtle losses in southern Queensland may be more significant than the higher numerical losses which have occurred in areas nearer to known Barrier Reef breeding zones.

Some people might regard the destruction of rays, unprotected in Queensland, as unimportant or even beneficial, ( Rays were a common cause of false shark alarms before the meshing program on southern Queensland beaches. These false alarms are now uncommon). But the spotted eagle ray (Actobatus narinari) and the pigmy devil ray (Mobula diabolus) are harmless creatures of great beauty and their losses seem severe.

Senator PUPLICK:

-As honourable senators will be aware, the Bill does provide some extraterritorial applications. The second reading speech presented in this place, and I think it is perhaps significant that that speech which was presented here by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney), is different from the second reading speech presented in the House of Representatives, deals with the problem of extraterritorial legislation in these terms:

In supporting a total worldwide ban on whaling, the Government aims to give a positive lead to the international community; a lead it would not be able to give unless such a ban were applied to all Australian citizens, vessels and aircraft.

Honourable senators should be aware that in 1946 Australia, by signing the international whaling convention, accepted an obligation to control worldwide the activities of its citizens in relation to whaling. Section 7 of the Whaling Act of 1960 passed by this Parliament gives clear effect to that obligation. It states that the restriction on whaling should apply ‘within and without the Commonwealth’. This was a clear indication of the policy of the Government to extend its laws on whaling outside the territorial limits of the nation. Australia will not breach its obligations as a signatory to the International Whaling Convention of 1946. Article 9 of that Convention states;

Each contracting government shall take appropriate measures to ensure the application of the provisions of this Convention and the punishment of infractions against the said provisions in operations carried out by persons or vessels under its jurisdiction.

The article goes on to say:

Prosecution for infractions against or contraventions of this Convention shall be instituted by the Government having jurisdiction over the offence.

Australia has considered whaling as an appropriate matter for extraterritorial restrictions on Australians since 1946. Other countries have acted similarly with respect to whale protection and conservation. The United States of America and New Zealand are examples.

As I mentioned, section 5 of the Whaling Act 1 960 states:

Waters to which this Act applies ‘means-

Australian waters; and

b) subject to section eight of this Act, all other waters.

Section 8 refers to the territorial waters, which could be included, nevertheless, by a proclamation issued by the Governor-general. The marginal note to section 7 states:

Extra-territorial operation of Act.

The section states:

This Act applies both within and without the Commonwealth and extends to all Territories.

That point was made very clearly by the Prime Minister when speaking in the Committee stage of the Whale Protection Bill in the House of Representatives on 20 May. In relation to an amendment, he said:

The amendment plainly would weaken the Whale Protection Bill. I will seek to show that it would weaken it substantially. I believe that that would be regrettable. Since 1 946 there have been some extra-territorial reaches in Australian obligations.

He went on to say:

I hope very much that the House will accept the stronger law because I believe it upholds the principle without jeopardising important principles of civil liberties which I know are important to all honourable members of this House. I believe that if the issues are seen clearly, the Government’s legislation will be supported.

I pay tribute to Senator Mulvihill for the remarks he made tonight in terms of the balance between the civil liberties issues and the national policy stated in terms of whale protection. I pay tribute to him and his colleagues for the thought they have given to consideration of the amendment in both the legislation committee and the House of Representatives as a whole and for their reconsideration of it along with the members of their Caucus in terms of their non-introduction of amendments in the Senate tonight. I believe that this is a clear example of the way in which a united approach on an issue which, frankly, has no partisan political considerations, can work to the advantage of all Australians.

I wish to make only one other point. This Bill provides that its provisions do not operate within the 3-mile limit of the States and the Territories unless for one of two reasons: Either the State or Territory concerned passes legislation which is complementary to this legislation so that a uniform national regime can be established or an agreement between the Governor of a State and the Governor-General may give the Commonwealth legislation force within State or territorial waters. As we know, State officials may be deputised to act as officials under the terms of this legislation. I believe that the job is not complete until all of the States and the Territories have either agreed between the respective governments to the application of Commonwealth law to their territorial waters or they have passed complementary State legislation. I regret that Project Jonah people and other concerned people such as you, Mr Acting Deputy President and I, still have a job to persuade our own State governments to take action to give protection to whales and other cetacea within our territorial waters. To that extent the campaign is not yet concluded. It still has that step to go. I hope that the way in which Project Jonah supporters and similar people have effectively debated and persuaded us of the necessity of this legislation will allow the opportunity for them to do the same for State governments.

I note that the Prime Minister in speaking to this Bill and the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) in presenting the second reading speech on this Bill indicated that the Prime Minister has written to State Premiers drawing their attention to this situation and seeking their co-operation to get this regime properly established on a national basis. I hope that all members of this Parliament will be prepared to join in a constructive effort to ensure that the application to the States does, in fact, take place.

Finally I say that we as a species inhabiting this planet along with a large number of other species have done a great deal of damage and great harm to it not only for our own generation but for subsequent generations. We have been the only species on the planet to systematically and by and large, unnecessarily despoil a large part of the planet. This is an opportunity to start making amends in one small area. We are responsible for the perilous situation that the world ‘s whale population has reached at the moment. We have an opportunity to start making amends. I hope that this legislation will be the beacon and will be a clear example of the way in which we can effectively go about restoring some degree of the natural beauty of the world and the harmony of the species of the planet. It will be a credit to this generation and to the members of this Parliament who have been active in pursuing this piece of legislation that they will be able to say that despite being part of a despoiling generation they were also part of a generation and a parliament which made a positive contribution to improving the quality of the environment and the nature of the ecology of this planet.

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

– It is good to see that an important Bill of this nature has such general agreement in this chamber. I am sure we all agree on the importance of the ban on whaling inside our area of economic responsibility, the 200-mile zone. I support the remarks of Senator Puplick that we must press the States with all our efforts to ensure that the ban extends not only from 3 miles out to 200 miles but also within the 3-mile limit of the States. We all agree too on the ban on the import of whale products and also the ban on the operation of whalers from Australia whether inside or outside the 200- nautical mile limit. Any such ban on whalers from Australia, if it is to be effective, necessarily must extend beyond the 200-mile limit. I very strongly agree that the Government must do all in its power to try to induce the international authorities to achieve a world-wide ban on whaling.

Nevertheless, when I read this Bill I had two concerns. One of those concerns has been dispelled. The other still remains a minor concern. The first concern deals with the problem of ships killing whales by accident. This is not uncommon. For instance, the area of the Coral Sea abounds with whales. They mate there. People in a ship cannot see a whale at night. They cannot detect it on radar and it might be so close to the surface that they cannot detect it on sonar. It is very easy to hit one accidentally at night and, of course, kill it. As they are mating perhaps they pay insufficient attention to what else is going on around them.

Senator Knight:

-Why is that?

Senator HAMER:

– I will leave that to the honourable senator’s imagination. I am not conducting a biology class.

Senator Knight:

– Your time is limited.

Senator HAMER:

– Also my time is limited. While they are mating perhaps they are not paying sufficient attention to keeping a close lookout for approaching ships. Clause 9 of the Bill, which is the only relevant clause, provides that it shall be an offence if: the action in question was reasonably necessary to avoid loss of human life, injury to any person or damage to any vessel or aircraft or to any structure affixed to or resting on the sea-bed;

My problem was that none of those provisions covered the case of a ship proceeding at sea and accidentally hitting a whale. I have been assured, however, that the common law defence of lack of intent applies in this case even though most of the cases will be heard in Western Australia and Queensland, both of which States have codified their law. Nevertheless, I am assured that the common law defence will be effective and that people who accidentally hit whales, not carelessly, will not suffer any penalty from it.

The second area of concern still remains to some extent. It is the extraterritorial application of the Whale Protection Act which Senator Puplick touched on. Extraterritorial application is common in this type of maritime legislation. Until recently we claimed only a 3-mile zone around Australia. Fishing Acts and navigation Acts, if they were to be effective, had to extend beyond the 3-mile limit. They had to be extraterritorial. Nevertheless, they were applying to ships or fishing craft operating out of Australia. It is quite different to say that the law applies to an Australian serving on a foreign ship on the high seas. That is quite a different type of extraterritorial application and one about which I think this Parliament should think very carefully before it comes into force. I would have been prepared to support an amendment that permitted Australian citizens to take part in whaling in the vessels of other countries, those countries being ones that abided by the rules and the standards of the International Whaling Convention. I think that would have been fair. Until we have been successful, which I am sure we will be eventually, in getting a total prohibition on whaling throughout the world, I think that would have been the proper course to take.

Nevertheless- and this matter was tested in the House of Representatives- I find there is little support for this point of view. I do not think that many people are concerned. I think the number of Australians ever likely to be involved in whaling in foreign ships is very small and may be none. I would like to make it quite clear that my remarks in no way extend to the operation of so-called pirate whaling vesels operating outside the rules of the International Whaling Convention. I would have been prepared to support an amendment that permitted Australians to serve in vessels operating under the rules of the IWC and under foreign flags outside Australian waters. As that is not supported and as it does not affect a large number of Australians, I do not intend to press it. One of the main reasons why I do not intend to press it in any way is that this is a very important Bill. It covers a subject of great concern to many Australians and I would not like to see its implementation held up by what would be a relatively minor amendment. I therefore support the Bill as it now stands.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– The Australian Democrats are pleased to support the Whale Protection Bill. We extend our commendation to the Government for the terms of the Bill and its introduction. We believe that the Government has acted forthrightly and with proper speed in implementing the recommendations of the Frost report. I also wish to pay an enormous tribute to those people who have stuck to Project Jonah throughout many years of campaigning, both inside and outside this Parliament, against fearful odds. It is now fashionable to oppose whaling and to be on the side of the whale. In the years before 1977 thousands of Australians were concerned about the fate of the whale and were making pleas to the Government to do something about it. At that time it was not only not fashionable to support anti-whaling activities but also often scoffed at. I can remember that the Government of the day in 1975-76 seemed impervious to any demands. In fact, I remember having a ‘Save the Whale’ sticker on my car. Often I was scoffed at and laughed at by people for putting such a sticker on my car.

One must be thankful that just before the 1977 election the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, announced that there would be an inquiry into whaling. Although that announcement was welcomed by a great number of people, there were many people who were disappointed that, coincidentally with that announcement of the inquiry, some action was not taken then. The inquiry was appointed in March 1978 and was headed by Sir Sydney Frost. Its report was tabled on 20 February 1979. Soon after-on 4 April 1979- the Prime Minister announced that the Government had accepted all the recommendations in that report.

Senator Knight:

– That was a great breakthrough.

Senator CHIPP:

– It was indeed. I commend Mr Fraser and the Government parties for accepting the recommendations; in fact for the whole thing. I commend the Liberal-National Country Party Government for what it has done since 1977. 1 repeat that great tribute should be paid to the people of Project Jonah who, over many years and against fearful odds, stuck to their task.

That is all I propose to say in the second reading stage of the debate with the exception of mentioning the amendments that are being mooted tonight to this Bill. With the best of my ability, I have tried to absorb the implications of the amendments proposed by honourable senators on this side and the other side of the House. I think I understand them. I compliment the honourable senators for their motives in proposing those amendments. Let me say that during the Committee stage of this debate we would need very forceful persuasion to support any amendment to this Bill. We would need to be absolutely convinced that accepting amendments at this stage would not do certain things. We are fearful of accepting amendments at this stage for two reasons. The first is that any amendment to this Bill might unwittingly weaken the impact of the Bill and that, according to correspondence I and other honourable senators have had from Project Jonah, is something unthinkable because they have worked and strived for so long. The second objection is more pragmatic, but I think very real. It is rumoured that the House of Representatives will be rising very soon until 19 August. If the Senate passes an amendment to this Bill this evening I cannot see members of the House of Representatives, hard-working though they are, suddenly dropping everything and saying: ‘We must consider the Senate’s amendments to this Bill and send it back’. The consequences of that would be that we would have no legislation of this kind until at least late into the Budget session. That would be a circumstance which would bother me greatly. Therefore, I am saying to those honourable senators who I know will be speaking in the Committee stage that they would need great powers of persuasion to persuade the Australian Democrats to imperil this Bill in terms of both weakening its impact and lessening the chances of its being passed this session.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– J rise to speak briefly at the second reading stage of the consideration of the Whale Protection Bill 1980 and related measures. I shall be brief because there will be some debate in the Committee stage and particular points will be made at that stage in relation to clauses of the Bill. However, there are some general things which I would like to say so that my position in this debate will not be misunderstood and which would probably be said at the second reading stage. The Bill is welcomed, I understand, by Government and Opposition senators in the intent it has to prohibit whaling within the 200-mile Australian economic zone. There is no contest about that. That is a recommendation of the Frost Inquiry into Whales and Whaling which the Government has chosen to implement. Again, nobody questions its right to implement it.

Nevertheless, there are some problems with the Bill which are no secret, which have been referred to in earlier speeches and to which 1 think people need to address themselves. I find myself in that position. The problems do not relate to whaling. They relate to a particular provision of the legislation which will be debated, I imagine, at greater length in the Committee stage. However, general statements of principle need to be made at this stage. I deplore the suggestion that any amendment made to the Bill by the Senatethe House of review- would in some way jeopardise the Bill. This is the first suggestion I have had of that. It is no secret that the Government parties have been considering this Bill for some weeks and that there has been some dispute about the application of one aspect of the Bill. The first suggestion I have had that the Bill would be delayed or jeopardised was in this House this evening.

I shall give a little history of the procedure of the Bill. It went into the House of Representatives and was considered and amended by a legislation committee of the House of Representatives on Wednesday of last week. That committee’s report was delivered to the House of Representatives on Wednesday evening of last week. If the Government had been at all anxious about amendment to the Bill and delay- it knew that amendments to the Bill were mooted- it could have proceeded on Wednesday evening. This Bill could have been in this chamber on Thursday. We sat on Thursday and Friday of last week, and this is the third day that we have sat this week. So, five effective sitting days after the House of Representatives legislation committee reported to the House that it had sought an amendment, the Government put the Bill on for debate in the Senate. I do not suggest that there is anything sinister in that. I just point out that the Government is in control of its program in that sense and it could, if it were concerned about delay, have hastened things so that we could have debated this Bill in this House days ago and not be debating it when the House of Representatives is about to rise for the winter recess. I would be surprised if that deterred Opposition senators in any event because in debates in the Senate this week there have been commentsindeed, more than just comments; there have been shouted objections on occasions- by Opposition senators about the fact that the Senate will rise this week.

It has been suggested very vigorously that under the pressure of business the Government should consider keeping Parliament sitting past the end of this week for the Opposition’s convenience. Everybody knows, because we have all been in opposition, that the end of a parliamentary sitting is not immutable and that changes can be made. If that was a genuine concern on this Bill, that point could have been pursued. Nevertheless, it clearly is not a genuine concern on the part of either the Government or the Opposition.

The Bill need not be delayed. As I said earlier, no suggestion was made to me by any member of the Government at any time- there still is notthat the Bill would be delayed or would fail because the Senate, exercising its review function, might seek to amend the Bill. I believe the Bill needs to be amended. The amendment I will propose later this evening does not weaken the Bill. On the contrary, I believe it will make it more acceptable. These might be strong words. Whilst I support the Bill and whilst I have involved myself in a number of environment and conservation issues, I believe that aspects of this Bill give environmentalists a bad name.

The extraterritorial provision brings into the legislation a precedent- I say that without qualification- which Australian legislation does not currently contain. It is a dangerous precedent. There are two aspects to it. They attach to clause 6 of the Bill. For the first time we make an Australian subject to prosecution for deeds committed in another country or in another country’s territorial waters which are legal in the place where they are committed.

We have some legislation which contains extraterritorial provisions and which relate to places outside Australia. That legislation falls into three categories. One category of legislation is that which enacts our ratification of international conventions. I cite as an example the Crimes (Hijacking of Aircraft) Act. The Australian Government ratified an international convention relating to the hijacking of aircraft whereby countries address themselves to the problem of aircraft being hijacked in air space over which no government, as matters stood, had any control. It was agreed that under certain conditions people who sought to hijack aircraft could be prosecuted by governments. We ratified and enacted that convention. In simple terms what happens is that Australia can prosecute somebody who attempts to hijack an aircraft which either departs from Australia or which is on its way to Australia because Australia is either the country of origin or the country of destination of the flight. That practice is adopted by international convention. No international convention attaches to this Bill. I will seek in my amendment to attach an international convention to it.

A second category of legislation is that which is necessary for the enforcement, buttressing or carrying out of our foreign affairs and defence policies. Nobody would be surprised by legislation in those areas because they extend beyond our borders, beyond our territorial seas. Such legislation is necessary for the conduct of our foreign affairs and defence matters. Frankly, I do not want to hear that this Bill is necessary for our foreign affairs. Our position on whaling in the International Whaling Commission has been known for some time; it is no secret. By moving to ban whaling within the 200-mile economic zone of Australia, the Government makes very clear its own position on whaling. It is now making its position clear in Australia. It has previously made it clear internationally.

The Government has indicated that it will continue to pursue a moratorium on whaling in the International Whaling Commission. I said at the beginning of my speech that no one takes exception to that; that is a policy decision which the Government can pursue. But when the Government pursues Australian citizens into areas which are under the jurisdiction of another government on a matter which that government deems to be legal and which, furthermore, in the case of whaling is accepted under an international convention as legal, a precedent is being set which is extremely dangerous. One example which has been given in other debates- it is not a particularly salubrious one- is that of smoking marihuana. Smoking marihuana is illegal in Australia. In a number of places in other countries it is not illegal. I refer, for example, to California in the United States of America. Indeed nobody- resident, citizen or visitor- can smoke marihuana in Australia. But an Australian could go to California and smoke marihuana legally and would be under no legal obligation to Australian law while there. It is my view that an action which is recognised internationally as legal and which takes place under the jurisdiction and law of the government of another country should not lend itself to the pursuit and prosecution of Australians acting in that area. That is the first objection.

My second objection concerns another precedent. Whilst we do have extraterritorial provisions in some categories of legislation which I have mentioned, we do not exempt Australian residents from the provisions of any of that legislation. This Bill in its extraterritorial provision refers to Australian citizens, Australian vessels and Australian aircraft and their crews. No objections are raised to the provision concerning Australian vessels or aircraft and their crews. Effectively they are precluded from whaling activities by other sections of the legislation. But clause 6 closes any last loophole that people might have thought applied.

To attach the extra provision to Australian citizens is something novel and dangerous. We provide in other legislation that Australian citizens and residents are on an equal footing. I find it extremely regrettable that the Government sticks at the point of not accepting an amendment which would put Australian citizens and residents on the same footing in any matter. It is in my view a great step backwards when we give people who come here to live as residents an incentive not to take citizenship. This country has a large number of people who, for whatever reason, have chosen not to take citizenship although they have lived here for a very long time. They may indeed have reared their own children and seen their own grandchildren reared in this country. But they have chosen not to take citizenship. That is their decision. But I find it deplorable that any advantage should attach to that decision as against somebody who is either born here and is automatically a citizen or somebody who chooses to come and live in Australia and subsequently makes the very important decision of taking Australian citizenship. Those two aspects will be covered by a later amendment.

I am not persuaded by reference to the 1 960 Whaling Act. Many sections of that Act relate to seas other than the territorial seas. It ought to be borne in mind that when this Act came into being we had a 3-mile territorial sea. We claimed a 12-mile limit; not a 200-mile one. I will refer to one section in the Act because I think it best clarifies for honourable senators what those other water provisions relate to. This Act, of course, is entirely in accordance with the recommendations of the international whaling conventions. I refer to section 28 (2) of the Act relating to regulations. I select it simply because I think it makes clearest those other water provisions. The section states:

The power to make regulations conferred by the last preceding subsection is, in relation to the taking or killing of whales, and to whales taken or killed, in waters other than Australian waters, exercisable only to the extent necessary to give effect to the International Whaling Conventions.

The Whaling Act 1969-73 gives effect to the international whaling conventions. Australia, as a member of the International Whaling Commission gave effect to those conventions. That required certain extension and certain extra territorial provisions. Only in relation to those conventions were details of that Act brought into being or conceived. This Bill goes outside that in its extraterritorial provisions. It is not a precedent.

An independent inquiry into whales and whaling headed by Sir Sydney Frost helps us not at all. I have read the Frost report. I have read the transcript of evidence given at the Frost inquiry. To suggest, as I think Senator Chipp may have been misled into suggesting, that opposition to this section of the legislation in any way takes on Project Jonah is quite mistaken. I have read the Project Jonah submission. It is a very large one. Not once in the submission, not once in evidence to the inquiry and not once when cross-examining other people giving evidence to the inquiry did anyone from Project Jonah- until this week- suggest that he thought that that extraterritorial provision was necessary or indeed desirable.

Senator Rocher:

– Until this week.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is right. That did not happen until Government senators had meetings and indicated they were aware that Project Jonah had not previously shown any concern in this area. It was not in the submission. The overwhelming point made in the submission was that Project Jonah wished the Government to legislate to cover the 200-mile economic zone because there was real doubt about whether the Government would go that far. There was doubt about whether it could go that far. The Frost inquiry took a great deal of evidence on this subject. It referred to the 200-mile aspect at length in its report. In considering whether the Government ought to legislate for the 200-mile economic zone as against the minor territorial sea, the Frost report referred to the legislation of other countries.

I found only one reference in the evidence to United States or Canadian legislation. It came from Dr Mosley on behalf of the Australian Conservation Foundation and urged that the Frost Commission should recommend legislation in respect of the 200-mile economic zone. There was no suggestion of legislation to cover anything outside it. The United States law is not the precedent for this legislation that others seek to claim it is. I am surprised that it is claimed to be a precedent. Government senators have had words to say on this matter in the past. Recently the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has spoken of the extraterritorial provisions of the United States legislation particularly as they refer to what is known as the Westinghouse case. Our Government does not like those provisions in respect of the Westinghouse case but it likes them when it comes to pursuing Australian citizens in a unique way.

The United States law is not the precedent that it is alleged to be. It has an extraterritorial provision which provides that those people who are under the jurisdiction of its law should not kill whales provided that the offence, the taking of a whale, does not occur in another country’s territorial sea. The United States law does not seek to intrude into an area of legal jurisdiction of another country in the way that this legislation does. I do not know whether the laws of other countries will be referred to as a precedent. I have such legislation with me. I will refer to it if necessary to show that there is no parallel in another country’s law to this draconian measure. It is not good enough to shrug our shoulders and say it is appropriate. We are taking a high profile- that is, grandstanding internationally -on the subject of whaling at the expense of a civil liberty which is important, at the expense of the rights of Australian citizens. We are giving an advantage to a person for not being an Australian citizen while that person can enjoy most of the privileges of an Australian citizen.

It worries me not at all that few people may be concerned about this matter. I have seen the situation occur too often. I have been a member of the Senate but six years. Others have been here longer. In the private debate on this aspect of the Bill, some people have pointed at the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act. They have said: ‘You voted for that and it has a provision relating to extraterritoriality. Therefore you must vote for this. It is a precedent’. I reject the assertion that it is a precedent. The detail can be explored later if somebody wants to raise it. I will not explore it in advance. The Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act is not a precedent for this legislation. We in the Parliament are running the risk of setting that precedent by passing into law this aspect of the Bill. It would allow an Australian Government of the future to pursue Australians within the borders of other countries for acts which have no relevance within Australia but which they consider undesirable. In conclusion on that point, there has been much in the newspapers recently about a film called Death of a Princess. It points out that in Saudi Arabia people can be executed for adultery.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Good idea.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable senator should be careful. I will remind him of what one of our colleagues in the other House said on the subject on a previous occasion if I am tempted. The issue of the film has raised great concern and outrage in certain countries and in Australia. How would we feel if a Saudi Arabian citizen came to Australia, committed adultery and was prosecuted subsequently in Saudi Arabia for doing something in this country which is not contrary to our law? I believe that we would not consider that acceptable. Whatever parallel we take, whether it is that one or the parallel I drew earlier in relation to marihuana in California this Bill cannot be justified.

I reject the assertion that by seeking to amend the Bill we somehow jeopardise the Government’s position on whaling. If the Government had cared so much a week ago when it knew the amendments would be moved in this chamber, it could have hastened its program. If it cares now it can sit for an extra 10 minutes and accept the point that is made by us. I will never accept as a senator that this House cannot review and amend legislation because the House of Representatives is due to go on holidays. That is a spurious objection to bring up. If the Government cares, it will take the steps that are necessary to effect the legislation and to heed the House of Review.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I support with the greatest goodwill and enthusiasm the Whale Protection Bill which is before the Senate and which I hope will be passed without any amendments whatsoever. I believe that the Bill is the product of a great deal of consideration by the Government, an inquiry- a great deal of effort was put into that inquiry- and the people who have worked for the achievement of the ban on whaling by Australia. I do not propose to repeat the things that have been said by Senator Mulvihill who, of course, is the Labor Party spokesman in this area and Senator Puplick who is the chairman of the Government’s environment committee, both of whom have given meritorious services in respect of this cause. They have been supported by others. I think they have reasons to be pleased tonight at the results of their endeavours. The things they have said about Project Jonah and its magnificent workers have in no way overstated the position. They are quite justified. Unless those people had pushed on as they did throughout difficult periods as well as good ones their achievement would not have been possible. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) likewise is enthusiastic for this cause. He entered into the debate the other night to do his best to ensure that the Bill was not amended in the House of Representatives. That is an indication that all along he has fought strongly for this cause. Likewise, the honourable David Thomson with a great deal of skill and zeal has followed that course.

Those things have already been mentioned. I wish to say only a few words. What has been said by both Senator Mulvihill and Senator Puplick in particular summarises the basic case for this legislation. It does so very well. The legislation before us follows the recommendations of the Frost report. I must criticise some of the arguments raised by Senator Martin. She said that in the Frost inquiry there was no reference to extraterritoriality. Of course she forgets that extraterritoriality was already contained in the whaling legislation and had been for 20 years. It was not challenged in the course of that inquiry by any objectors. The Commissioner went ahead and made his important recommendations. In recommendation No. 4, he states:

Consideration should be given to the repeal of the Whaling Act 1960 and its replacement by new legislation directed to the protection of the cetacea and, if thought desirable, other marine mammals along the lines of the Marine Mammals Protection legislation of the United States and New Zealand.

In other words, it should be along the lines of legislation that has an extraterritorial operation. The Commissioner made the recommendations and the Government accepted all of them. The Government has applied in particular the American legislation to this Bill. There was a reference tonight to the American legislation, the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1972, by Senator Martin, who said that it is not a precedent. Under the heading ‘Prohibitions’, after referring to certain exceptions which are not particularly relevant in this connection, section 102 of that legislation states: . . it is unlawful-

  1. For any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or any vessel or other conveyance subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take any marine mammal on the high seas;

It goes on to refer to other restrictions, it is entitled to enforce. That section is a reference to any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It is a clear extraterritorial operation and is not restrained in any way to mere vessels of the United States. Apparently in the Australian case Senator Martin would apply legislation merely to vessels and not to any person who is under our jurisdiction. The clear understanding is to be found in this legislation. It follows from the Frost report, and naturally should be implemented if we are to be consistent in our attitude to the campaign against whaling.

As I have said, the Government’s policy is clear. It is very important that there should not be any jeopardising of the position so far as Australia is concerned. Senator Martin made a play of this because she would have it suggested that the jeopardy that was to occur here was the delay in introducing the Bill. It would be an important consideration if this Bill were to be delayed for some considerable period- perhaps some months- but the important thing about the jeopardy is the way in which our policy in regard to whaling would be affected if we were to take the step of amending to remove the extraterritorial provisions of the Bill. In that regard, in a speech on the amendments being considered in the House of Representatives two days ago, the Prime Minister said:

If we were to restrict the application of our law to people living in Australia and operating off Australian shores in the 200-mile fishing zone there will be very serious defects in the law. There will be opportunities for the purpose of the law to be evaded and opportunities for the purpose of Project Jonah and everything behind that campaign- which I know the honourable member for Robertson supported, as did this Government- to be put in jeopardy in a way that should not be the case.

I will refer to the jeopardy which might occur if we were to exclude the people Senator Martin would exclude. That is the real jeopardy and the one that must be avoided by the Senate in all circumstances. It is important to realise that this is not a matter of grandstanding, to use Senator Martin’s word. Because in this country we hold a sincere belief that it is important to cut out whaling throughout the world, it is vital that Australia change its policy and then consistently legislate to lead the world in this matter. That is not grandstanding; that is a matter of policy. I bring to my support the words of Mr Dawkins, a Labor member of the House of Representatives, who spoke during the meeting of the legislation committee on 14 May 1980. At that stage he was bound to vote for an amendment, but his words are significant. He said:

However, I do have some sympathy for the Government ‘s position because I think the Government has taken a very strong stand- I commend the Government for it- in opposition to whaling. The clause we are debating is evidence that the Government is prepared to go to every length to see that Australians are not involved in whaling in any form. A government can take a variety of measures to prevent whaling. This is probably an extreme measure but it is certainly a legitimate one for a government to take if it is interested in seeing whaling stopped throughout the world. I think it is to be seen not just in the context of Australia ‘s position but also in that of our ability to encourage other nations to also cease whaling. That certainly is my position and I suspect that is probably the position of Australia.

Those are excellent words. They come from a political opponent of mine, but they summarise very well the importance of Australia taking a strong position. It is not a matter of grandstanding but of pursuing a strong and high policy if we are to persuade other countries to give up whaling. The question of extraterritoriality seems to be the only matter that really is in issue in this debate. There has been some reference in advance by Senator Martin to the other examples of extraterritoriality. A list of some 20 relevant acts has been extracted, although they are by no means conclusive. The list includes such Acts as the Companies (Foreign Takeovers) Act, the Crimes Act, the Crimes at Sea Act, and of course the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act. The Senate not only debated the latter Act but also held an investigation into it, following which it passed and adopted the important extraterritorial operation so that citizens of Australia should not go abroad and by their actions cause embarrassment and hostility to the policies of Australia. That is a very good example of where this Parliament has applied such a provision in recent times. Rather than go through each of the Acts and try to distinguish them, as Senator Martin tried to do. I think the whole list should be incorporated in Hansard. I seek leave to incorporate that list of Acts in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act 1972 (section 7).

Crimes Act 1 9 1 4 ( section 3a ).

Crimes (Aircraft) Act 1963 (section 5).

Crimes at Sea Act 1979 (applies to certain vessels based on Australia).

Crimes ( Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978.

Crimes (Hijacking of Aircraft) Act 1972 (section 5).

Crimes ( Overseas ) Act 1 964 (section 4 ).

Crimes ( Protection of Aircraft ) Act 1 973 (section 5 ).

Defence Act 1903 (section 5).

Fisheries Act 1952 (in relation to any person within the Australian Fishing Zone and Australians within Proclaimed Waters).

Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (section 6).

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.

Marriage Act 1961 (e.g. Foreign Marriages).

Naval Defence Act 1910.

Navigation Act 1912 (owners liability for actions on Australian ships).

Pollution of the Sea by Oil Act 1960 (in relation to actions by Australian ships).

Submarine Cables and Pipelines.

Protection Act 1963 (section 5).

Senator MISSEN:

– The best example of such a provision is the Whaling Act of 1960, which demonstrates that the legislation this Bill is replacing had extraterritorial operation. It is rather interesting to find that Senator Martin in advance has endeavoured to say that the Whaling

Act. which of course was an Act which endeavoured to comply with an international convention of 1946. is not relevant. I remind honourable senators that Article 1 X of the convention we are following, which is still applicable and binding on Australia, states:

  1. Each Contracting Government shall take appropriate measures to ensure the application of the provisions of the Convention and the punishment of infractions against the said provisions in operations carried out by persons or by vessels under its jurisdiction.

I emphasise the words ‘by persons or by vessels under its jurisdiction ‘. That is our binding promise, our undertaking under an international convention, and that is what we did when we passed the Whaling Act. There is a further requirement under clause 3 of that Article, which states:

Prosecution for infractions against or contraventions of this Convention shall be instituted by the Government having jurisdiction over the offence.

It is interesting that Senator Martin told the Senate tonight that that Act is not applicable. I suggest that honourable senators look at section 28 of the Whaling Act, which provides:

The power to make regulations conferred by the last preceding sub-section is, in relation to the taking or killing of whales, and to whales taken or killed, in waters other than Australian waters, exercisable only to the extent necessary to give effect to the International Whaling Convention.

Honourable senators were left with the impression that that was the extraterritorial operation only of the Whaling Act of 1960. Of course, it was not. It was just the provision, the last clause, in regard to whaling regulations. In fact, the Act already contains in its substantial provisions, which apply to the offences and to all other parts of that Act, a definition of waters to which the Act applies, which include not only Australian waters but also, subject to section 8, all other waters. Furthermore, section 7 of the Act, under the heading ‘Extra-territorial operation of the Act’, states:

This Act applies both within and without the Commonwealth and extends to all the Territories.

I know that Senator Puplick mentioned this in passing. But Senator Martin chooses to ignore those sections which give general extraterritorial operation and include of course the offences as set out under that Act.

Senator Grimes:

– Only if it is contrary to the convention.

Senator MISSEN:

– No, you are quite wrong; it is not only subject to the convention. Those sections cover all parts of the Act. The clause that relates to the regulations refers to the convention. We all agree that even this general legislation is now totally inadequate for our purposes. The report recommended we should replace it by an

Act which bans whaling entirely and goes much further. We still are required and bound to carry out at least the terms of that convention. If we do not have an extraterritorial operation in this new Bill we will not be carrying out our own obligations under the 1946 convention. So there is every reason for that operation. Quite apart from the question of the desirability of having an extraterritorial operation, there is also the fact that we in this country could now create the gigantic loophole which would be provided if we said to the people of the world: ‘Right, we will cover all our Australian activities within the 200-mile limit. We will in fact cover all activities of our ships that go anywhere in the world provided they are carrying the Australian flag’.

Somebody may choose not to have an Australian flag but to have a flag of convenience such as the Taiwanese flag. There are many Taiwanese boats now operating in this area as pirate whalers, such as the Cyprus and the Sierra which was doing a lot of pirate whaling but which is now sunk. The Sierra, was making about $3.5m a year and was secretly selling whale meat to the Japanese. Of course, that enabled the Japanese to obtain quite a lot more whale meat than its entitlement under the IWC quota. In those cases the ships are covering themselves by operating under another flag. If the amendment that has been proposed is agreed to Australians could operate in another country under another flag and there is a great possibility that this barbarous practice could continue. Australia’s name would be mud in the eyes of the world and Australia’s fine protestations would be useless in respect of stopping other countries from whaling because we would be seen not to be genuine in what we were saying.

I believe it is important to recognise- this is the other major point I want to make- that the argument on civil liberties is not valid. The argument is, as I have seen in the record of the other debate, that a son might want to work on a whaling boat or someone might be ‘conscripted’ into doing some whaling somewhere. Everybody knows that the reason we are trying to stop Australians from whaling is that there is a good deal of money in it; that a large whale is worth $50,000; that whaling boats can make millions of dollars a year by practising this trade. We must ensure that is stopped by people who have contact with this country. It is not good enough to say, as the amendment proposes, that if countries comply with the IWC conditions and if they are working in that country it is all right. We do not know how many countries will be involved. We now know that Canada is apparently thinking of commencing whaling again, according to the latest information, as Japan and Russia still do. We do not know what other countries will be involved, but we know that they whale beyond their quotas. We know that they do not abide by their quotas. Who will ever know whether the people whom we are going to prosecute were whaling within their quota or beyond it?

Senator Grimes:

– Then we won’t worry about any conventions.

Senator MISSEN:

-They won’t follow the convention. In fact, we are trying hard to get that convention changed. It is our policy to get a moratorium on whales and to do away with quotas. Therefore we should do nothing in our Bill which would increase the possibility of people exploiting the quotas to the full. We should not have a bar of that amendment. As to civil liberties, one would think that the people who raised the civil liberties cry would have been able to produce evidence from among the civil liberties organisations that the liberty to butcher whales is important. This was considered last night. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber, and I trust on the other side, have all seen the telegram of today’s date from the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties. The Council met last night and considered this question. The telegram from George Petersen M.P. reads:

As member of Committee of New South Wales Council for civil liberties president Malcolm Ramage desires me to advise you that last night’s meeting of committee of council for civil liberties affirmed that restriction on whaling activities of Australian citizens on foreign vessels raises no civil liberties issues requiring amendment of the Bill.

That is what the New South Wales Council had to say. I have been in touch with other councils. Where is the evidence? Where are the people who are interested in civil liberties? I am afraid they have not been too noticeable among the objectors to the clauses in this legislation.

Senator Rocher:

– They don’t even know about it.

Senator MISSEN:

-Yes, they know about it, I assure you. Senator, as you come from Western Australia you may not know about it. I assure you that in other States with civil liberties councils, where Project Jonah and the Australian Conservation Foundation have been active, the people know about this matter. If there had been any problem about this they would have let us know. I have been in touch with them. Have you been in touch with them? I do not know whether you have.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have.

Senator MISSEN:

-You have. Well, you have not produced anything tonight to suggest the slightest support for your allegation on the grounds of civil liberties. I am glad to hear that you have been in touch with them. I note the absence of your evidence and that you have produced nothing in this regard. There is one last point that I make. We have just signed the Antartica Treaty. In accordance with that treaty we are applying its terms to Australians operating outside Australia, in fact in the whole of Antarctica. We have just signed the treaty. We have just passed a Bill in this Parliament. We are thereby applying consistency. Let the Whaling Bill be consistent with it. We have included the extra territorial operation. I believe what has been done by the Government in regard to the whole of this legislation is highly meritorious. I believe this legislation ought to be passed tonight so that we can get ahead and stand with our heads up as a country which has pledged in all respects to get rid of whaling. We can assure this if we do not amend the legislation in any way whatsoever.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I call Senator Martin who had indicated to me that she claimed to be misrepresented.

Senator MARTIN (Queensland)- During the speech by Senator Missen he misrepresented something I had said. I take advantage of the rights available to me in the Senate to correct the record. Senator Missen claimed that I had said that the Whaling Act is not relevant. I did not say that at all. The Act had been quoted earlier as a precedent for the type of extraterritorial provision that is in the Whaling Protection Bill. What I said was not that the Act was irrelevant but that in pointing to the thrust of the application of extraterritoriality it showed that it came under an international convention and was for the purpose of giving effect to the International Whaling Convention. That was not to say that it was irrelevant at all. I did not seek, as Senator Missen claimed, to ignore the offences under any Act.

The final point on which I claim to have been misrepresented relates to the reference to civil liberties. Senator Missen said that I had not produced anything relating to concern about civil liberties. I suggest that to conclude from that that no concern had been expressed to me by civil liberties organisations is quite spurious and to set the record straight I tell the Senate that I have had an indication to me from the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties that there is indeed a great concern. The reason it had not raised it publicly is that there is a meeting tomorrow of councils from Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria and the Queensland officials felt that it would be improper for them to raise in advance of that meeting a concern they had about national legislation. I suggest that all that has been proved by Senator Missen in relation to me is nothing. In fact, it proves that the New South Wales division has fewer scruples than does the Queensland division.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I wish to speak briefly to clarify a couple of points and to put a point of view. I was the one in our party room who raised this matter of the difficulty of the extraterritorial provisions of this legislation and I have been hit over the head every day since because our amendment arose out of it. Senator Martin rose and took a purist view of the Senate, as she always does, and I respect her for that. But the game is politics and the simple fact of the matter is that the Opposition has been informed by the Government that if it proceeds with its amendment, which it wished to run for a certain time before it was reviewed, there would be no passage of the Bill. The House of Representatives will rise shortly and it is not intended to bring the House of Representatives back to consider this legislation, so there will be no passage of the Bill. As it happens the Opposition and I am sure all members of the Government believe that there should be such an Act.

I make it perfectly clear that whaling is abhorrent to me. I represent a State- Tasmaniawhere whales once bred in the southern inlets and where there was a large whaling industry. There have been no whales for 70 or 80 years because they were destroyed by the whaling industry at the time. Therefore whaling is abhorrent to me. But I make it perfectly clear that I share Senator Martin’s concern about the extraterritorial provisions of this legislation. As she said, these Bills provide for penalties to Australians who take part in acts overseas which are not only legal in the countries and territories where they are performed but also legal by an international convention- the International Whaling Convention. I notice that Senator Missen, in rebuttal of Senator Martin’s arguments, carefully stepped around this point all the way through his speech. He carefully avoided it when he was considering her references to the Whaling Act of 1 966.

I share Senator Martin’s disquiet. I know that honourable senators on both sides of this place also share it. I also share the view of Senator Hamer that this provision would apply to very few, if any, Australians. As it is, it is better to have the legislation and to consider the possible amendments later than not to have any legislation at all. I note that Senator Missen at no stage referred to the arguments of Sentor Martin, which I think are important and should be considered. In fact, this does set a precedent. Senator Missen gave as his argument for supporting the legislation as it is that, because we have a sincere belief that there should be no whaling, the extraterritorial provisions of this legislation are correct. They were the words that Senator Missen used. I am sure that there are people in this country who have a very sincere belief that abortion is evil and illegal. Will we apply the same sorts of things to Australian women who have an abortion overseas? There are people in this country who, as Senator Martin said, have the same view about marihuana and prostitution, which are illegal in some countries. We should not set this sort of precedent. I wonder why Senator Missen avoided any concern about the precedent that this might set.

Senator Walters:

– How are you going to vote?

Senator GRIMES:

-Clearly, I will vote for the original legislation because if we pass the amendment there will be no Act. That, I think, is the lesser of the two evils but we must reconsider the matter again at a later date.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate, which have been at various levels of vigour. Each speaker has emphasised his support for not having any whaling. That is welcome to the Government because we were not sure, in light of the amendment which was moved in the House of Representatives by the Australian Labor Party, whether that was as unanimous a view as we would have wished. The Government has adopted a firm commitment to a worldwide ban on whaling. It believes that this policy is supported by most Australians. It is certainly very firmly stated in the legislation presented to the Senate. The amendment to which reference has been made and which will not be moved in the Senate is an amendment which would have delayed the commencement of a key element of the policy for an unspecified period but for not less than 12 months. It would have enabled Australians to take pan in whaling operations anywhere in the world outside the Australian fishing zone.

If the amendment were accepted, Australians could involve themselves in pirate whaling operations which we know do take place. We know that pirate whaling ships are taking protected species, undersized whales and lactating females and calves. It is for this reason that the Government indicated very firmly in the debate in the other place on 20 May, which is recorded in Hansard, that it was opposed to the amendment which had been put forward and that it would also oppose it here. The facts are quite simple. We know that pirate whaling is occurring. We know that we do not want Australian citizens to take part in that activity. For that reason we wish to legislate to prevent it.

The only other point which 1 wish to make about this matter is that the Government also does not propose to accept the amendment which has been foreshadowed by Senator Martin. We believe that the lead which the Government seeks to give to the international community in the introduction of a worldwide ban on whaling would not be given if we permitted the practice of whaling by Australians in accordance with the International Whaling Convention. I suppose the fundamental point is that, whilst there are obligations under the International Whaling Convention, there is no reason why Australia should accept those obligations as being the maximum extent of its obligation. In fact, the Government proposes to go beyond that and to legislate to ensure not only that there is no whaling within its territorial waters but also that Australian citizens do not indulge in whaling wherever it may be possible for it to be carried out. I commend the Bills to the Senate and thank the many honourable senators who have indicated their support for them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

In Committee

Whale Protection Bill 1980.

The Bill.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have indicated that I will be moving two amendments. One, an amendment to clause 3, will not be necessary if the other, an amendment to clause 6, fails. I therefore move:

Clause 6, page 4, line 18, after ‘Australia’ insert ‘and persons not being Australian citizens who are ordinarily resident in Australia (except such Australian citizens or such Australian residents who engage in whaling operations which are in accordance with the International Whaling Conventions)’.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– The amendment that I have moved is in accordance with the sentiments I expressed during my speech on the second reading of the Bill. I think it is important to note that, whilst the amendment is adding just a number of words to a sentence of clause 6, in fact it seeks to do two quite different but not conflicting things. The first part is the reference to persons not being Australian citizens but who are ordinarily resident in Australia. It seeks support under this Bill for the application of the extraterritorial provision to people domiciled or resident in Australia, who are citizens and who are residents.

I mentioned during my speech at the second reading stage that clause 6 refers only to Australian citizens and does not take into account those people who may be resident in Australiawho indeed may be resident for a very long time- who do not choose to take citizenship, although it may be their right to take it and who would be entitled to it if they wanted it. This raises the possibility that while we will pursue outside our economic zone only those people who are citizens, it is possible that there would be people who could live in Australia, who do not have citizenship and who could engage in that pirate whaling which has been so deplored this evening by the Opposition and by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) who in this chamber represents the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson). So long as the whaling is carried out outside the 200-mile economic zone, they can enjoy the benefits of living in Australia but they are not subject- because they are not citizens- to the extraterritorial provision.

The Bill provides that foreigners who engage in whaling within our 200-mile area can be prosecuted. It does not provide that nonAustralian citizens can be prosecuted by the Australian Government outside that limit. Of course, we would not seek to prosecute all citizens of the world. I am not suggesting that we should be the policemen of the world on whaling, although the Government might seek to be the leader of the world in regard to whaling. I do, nevertheless, suggest that people who ordinarily live in the way that Australian citizens do, and who are part of this country to all intents and purposes, should not have any advantage. The second part of the amendment addresses itself to the problem of the activities of Australian citizens and residents who engage in activities which are in accordance with the international whaling conventions.

It is worth noting, because there has been some reference to some other legislation, that the other countries that have enacted this legislation do not go nearly as far as this Bill does. The United States legislation does not pursue people under its own jurisdiction who are involved in the taking of whales in other countries’ extraterritorial seas. The Canadian legislation does not go within any reach of that at all. I shall quote the section of the Canadian regulations which relates to this. It is a regulation headed Prohibition’ and it states:

Except as authorized by or under these Regulations -

The exceptions are for Eskimos and Indians-

No person shall

engage in whaling in Canadian fisheries waters as defined in the Fisheries Act;

leave any part or place in Canada with a whale capture.

That falls a long way short of the Australian legislation, I think honourable senators will agree. The United States legislation refers, under prohibitions, to the taking of certain wildlife; that is porpoises, whales, or whatever. It states:

It is unlawful to take endangered wildlife within the United States, within the territorial sea of the United States, or upon the high seas. The high seas shall be all waters seaward of the territorial sea of the United States, except waters officially recognized by the United States as the territorial sea of another country, under international law.

Some precedents were quoted to honourable senators earlier this evening. I suggest if were truly to follow the precedent, we would not be seeking to pursue people into other countries’ areas. If we also seek to depend, as some other speakers have this evening, on precedents for this provision- the extraterritorial provision- in other Acts, then we ought to be consistent. My amendment aims to make this Bill consistent with that category of legislation which we have already on the statute books which relates to the enactment of the ratification of international conventions. This is a slightly different international convention, but, nevertheless, it is an international agreement amongst those countries which are interested in the subject, and it is one which Australia has always abided by in the past. I am not at all impressed, I might say, by the selected quotation that has been made from articles of the International Whaling Convention. I refer to article 9, as Senator Missen did. Part I states:

Each Contracting Government shall take appropriate measures to ensure the application of the provisions of this Convention and the punishment of infractions against the said provisions in operations carried out by persons or by vessels under its jurisdiction.

That is the article under which we have previously passed into law the Whaling Act. We took action that was necessary to punish infactions against the provisions by persons and vessels under our jurisdiction, but it was for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Convention. This Bill is not for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Convention; it is for the purpose of putting into law recommendations of the Frost report. I refer to recommendation 4, as did Senator Missen, which states:

Consideration should be given to the repeal of the Whaling Act I960 and its replacement by new legislation directed to the protection of cetacea. and if thought desirable other marine mammals, along the lines of the marine mammal protection legislation of the United States and New Zealand.

The reference to other marine mammals is because in the body of the report it is noted that the Frost inquiry was asked to inquire only into whaling, not into the position of other cetacea. So the Frost report recommends that other marine mammals may be included along the lines of marine mammal protection legislation. That is the reference in the recommendation to other countries’ legislation. The other significant recommendation in the report is found on page 61 which is in the middle of a discussion on international law and advice given as to whether coastal States have the right to establish a 200-mile fishing zone off the coast. By the way, the Frost report ends up by stating that in the opinion of the inquiry, the Australian Government could enact legislation within the 200-mile fishing zone. The report states:

The inquiry agrees with the conclusions reached in these opinions.

That is legal opinions on the subject-

That the coastal state has the power to prohibit whaling within the 200-mile fishing zone is clearly the opinion of the United States, Canada and New Zealand, each of which has taken action on this matter. Accordingly, if this Inquiry takes the view that Australia should adopt a policy against the continuation of whaling it would be consistent with that view for the Inquiry to recommend that whaling by foreign ships in the 200-mile fishing zone should be prohibited.

That is the context of the only reference to other countries’ legislation. The report sets out quite clearly the only context in which the inquiry considered the matter, and my reading of the transcript of the inquiry confirms that that is the only context in which it was ever raised. I am referring to the question of the 200-mile limit and whether the Government should legislate for the full 200-mile economic zone. The inquiry recommended accordingly. It is a gross extension of the comments and the recommendations in the report to say that they justify clause 6 of the Bill. They do not. Accordingly, I have moved the amendment, which I think is necessary to protect the civil liberties of Australians, to make the legislation in its extraterritorial application consistent with other Bills which have extraterritorial provisions and to ensure that Australian residents have no advantages over Australian citizens.

I must say that I am extremely distressed at the line that has been taken by the Opposition in relation to an amendment that it indicated earlier to the Senate and to others it would move. In the legislation committee of the House of Representatives, the Opposition successfully moved for an amendment. I do not suggest, as Senator Missen does, that Mr Dawkin’s words are in any way significant in that debate, because I sat through the debate and it was quite clear that Mr Dawkins was acting according to a Caucus decision and not according to his own opinions. He did his best to damn the line that the Opposition took in that legislation committee. The amendment was carried, and that amendment moved by the Opposition in the legislation committee was part of an amendment circulated in the name of Senator Ryan in this Senate earlier today. It went before the House of Representatives. It was supported by the Opposition in the House of Representatives on Tuesday of this week. At that stage, the Opposition spokesman on environment and conservation indicated that the Opposition would not accept the amendment moved by the honourable member for Forrest in the other place. I found his reasons not only unconvincing but also totally incomprehensible. In other words, they were best described as gobbledegook.

I was further distressed to hear my own Minister, Senator Chaney, say that he was opposed for the reasons given by Mr Cohen, because one cannot make any sense of the reasons given by Mr Cohen. I appeal to the Minister in this place to give a clear indication why the Government will not accept an amendment which extends the provision to Australian residents, if it really cares about people identified as Australians killing whales, and why it will not accept a limitation on the extraterritorial provision which would make the Bill less offensive both to those who have this concern and to other countries.

Senator Evans:

– Why don’t you try us out by separating your amendments instead of mixing up a sweetener with something which is obviously unacceptable?

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– If I had an undertaking that the Opposition would vote for the first part of the amendment, I would move the first part of the amendment separately, if the Committee gave me leave to do so. The Opposition could indicate which part of the amendment it likes, if that is what it wants to do.

Senator Chipp:

– You can have our undertaking on that.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

- Senator Evans will have the opportunity to rise in two or three minutes to indicate what he is trying to say to me quite clearly instead of by interjection. In the meantime, I will finish what I am putting to the Minister. I would like him to reply to why the Government finds it not acceptable to include a reference to ‘persons ordinarily resident in Australia ‘. In the debate in the House of Representatives, the honourable member for Forrest asked very strongly that the Minister reply to that aspect. The Minister ignored it in his reply. I trust that the Minister here will not ignore that aspect and I look forward eagerly to finding out finally why the Government has that view.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I intervene in the debate on two grounds. First of all, Senator Grimes and I have attempted to act in an extremely restrained manner. We could have been difficult in view of the happenings of a few days ago. But I think we put the principle above any petty political advantage. I did not take kindly to what I thought were the implications in Senator Martin’s remarks. She appeared to be lecturing us. I think we should be fair about this. Senator Grimes, in his clear-cut style, indicated that we balanced civil liberties against conservation and we have put the Government on trust. I do not want to be provocative, nor does Senator Grimes or anyone else in the Opposition. We nailed our colours to the mast in relation to conservation and whaling generally. However, if this provocation continues, I will come into the debate much more heavily. I think Senator Martin has been here long enough to know the ebb and flow during the day and what might or might not happen in the Senate. We did not capitulate to the Government. We agreed to approach this matter in a sane, responsible way, not merely as Labor or Liberal politicians but as Australians. I think it is time that Senator Martin got her priorities straightened out.

Senator Chipp:

– I wish to take a point of order. I understood that Senator Martin asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) two pertinent questions as to why the Government would not accept the two prongs of her amendment. I would have thought that in such an important debate when some of us are still listening to the debate, for and against, it would be courtesy to the Committee for the Minister to accede to Senator Martin’s request now before any further debate ensued. I would have thought that he could have given the honourable senator an answer as to why the Government will not accept, particularly the first part of Senator Martin’s amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The point is taken. The Minister has the right to reply and make observations on this. If he seeks the call, he will get the call. To my knowledge the Minister has not sought the call.

Senator Mulvihill:

– He told me that he would not accept any amendments and we have taken him on trust. We do not want any double dealings at this stage of the night.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Minister will seek the call when he wants to and I will certainly give him the call. Up to this point the Minister has not sought the call.

Senator ROCHER:
Western Australia

– I will be brief. Senator Martin has very convincingly and cogently put the argument in favour of the amendment. I note with satisfaction that she was supported at the second reading stage by Senator Grimes. I simply start with the premise that Australian law should have extraterritorial application only in very special circumstances. I put the proposition, supported by argument advanced by Senator Martin, that those circumstances do not exist in the context of this clause to my satisfaction. For those who might accept that proposition, it probably follows that it is incumbent on any government to give good and sufficient reasons for possessing extraterritorial capacity, and I must say that the reasons advanced by the Government so far are far from compelling.

The clause as it stands does not strike me as necessary or even desirable in the furtherance of the main objective of this measure, which is simply the preservation of whales. Clause 6 detracts from the sum of liberties and freedoms presently enjoyed by Australian citizens or by Australian residents.

Senator Tate:

– Oh, come on!

Senator ROCHER:

– Let me say, in case I am misunderstood in what I have said, that I am talking about personal liberties. I support the Bill and its objectives. In no way should anything I have said be misconstrued to the contrary. The clause does detract from the sum total of liberties of Australian citizens and of Australian residents. For this reason, and for the many reasons advanced by Senator Martin and supported by Senator Grimes, I support the amendment.

Senator THOMAS:
Western Australia

– I support Senator Martin’s amendment. I would like to establish at the outset in a very brief contribution that I support the Bill and its intentions. I support the banning of whaling in Australia and I support every effort that the Government can make to endeavour to ban whaling throughout the world. Let that be firmly understood. However, I do have problems with clause 6 (2) (a) in relation to the definition of domiciled’. I ask the learned lawyers present in the chamber to define for me what the word domiciled’ means. I am particularly concerned about people who happen to live in Albany and who have worked in the whaling industry all of their lives. These people are of concern to me. Why should we discriminate against these persons and prevent them from carrying on their normal livelihood in countries where it is legal to do so, and to prosecute them or force them to renounce their Australian citizenship. That is a provision of the present Bill, and it is the particular part to which 1 strongly object.

In Senator Missen ‘s rather incredible contribution he said on the one hand that in regard to extraterritorial provisions, Australia is merely following the lead of the United States of America and the New Zealand legislation. Immediately after that, he said that Australia is taking the lead. Australia cannot follow and take the lead at the same time. It has to be one thing or the other. I put to the Senate in the strongest possible terms that if a lawyer present could define for me the meaning of the word domiciled’ in any other way than to say that if somebody moves to Japan and pursues not just the catching of whales but also their processing or works in any ancillary job which has anything whatsoever to do with whaling -

Senator Rocher:

– It could be a typist in an office.

Senator THOMAS:

-Exactly! He or she could be a typist in a shop associated with the selling of whaling products, which makes this provision rather ridiculous. The person could be in some way associated with the business of whaling and may intend to live permanently in Japan. However, if on some future occasion- say in 50 years time- that person returns to Australia it may be proved that that person when he carried out the operation was, in fact, domiciled in Australia. That is the problem.

Senator Wheeldon:

– How could they be in 50 years?

Senator THOMAS:

– The honourable senator is a lawyer. I ask him please to define for me the meaning of the word ‘domiciled’. I am told by some learned friends that the word ‘domiciled’ has defied definition by the High Court of Australia. There is a high pile of decisions on the definition of the word ‘domiciled’. In conclusion, I merely say that I support as strongly as is possible Senator Martin’s amendment for the reason that I think the Bill discriminates against persons who have spent a lifetime in the industry.

Senator Georges:

– It is the whales we are concerned about.

Senator THOMAS:

-I have also demonstrated my concern for whales.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– Firstly, I compliment Senator Martin on what I thought was a remarkable contribution to the debate in the Committee tonight. I am disappointed that in her amendment to clause 6 she has not separated her two concepts. The first amendment she wants is to put residents of Australia in the same category as citizens of Australia. I thought that in her speech in the debate on the second reading she put an unanswerable case to the effect that this distinction should be removed. In fact, she said that it was a classic case of an incentive for a person not to become a naturalised citizen. I am still confounded as to why the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) will not give the reasons why that is not acceptable to the Government. It is for one of two reasons, as I understand them. Either the Minister is treating the Senate with contempt, and knowing the Minister I think that is unthinkable, or there is just no answer, and I would have preferred to wait for the Minister’s explanation before speaking. Given ordinary circumstances and not circumstances in which we are asked to accept an amendment to the Bill knowing that the House of Representatives has either risen or is about to rise, and that if any amendment is carried the Bill will not become law until at least mid-September -

Senator Rocher:

– We are not under duress.

Senator CHIPP:

– No, we are not under duress. But the simple stark fact remains that that is what will happen if we pass this amendment tonight. I am less charitable than Senator Martin about the Government’s reasons for introducing this Bill tonight. Let us face political facts. The simple reason is that anyone who wants this Bill passed tonight and assented to during the next few days will not move an amendment to this Bill tonight because it would then lie where it is until at least mid-September. I am not prepared to vote for that. In principle, I say that if this matter of residency is brought up at any time in the future it will have my total support.

I am not as sanguine as Senator Martin, Senator Rocher or Senator Thomas about the civil liberties question. I do not know that my record on civil liberties is impeccable, but it is not too bad. It seems to me that to ask for a civil liberty in this case is to ask for a civil liberty for an expatriate Australian to kill whales. To me that is a very strange basis on which to ask people to get worked up about civil liberties. The second prong of Senator Martin’s amendment does not attract me, but the first one certainly does. I hope that the Minister can give us an explanation as to why the first proposition, in particular, is not acceptable to the Government.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I thought I might be able to provide some assistance, and I wish to ask another question. I was disturbed to hear Senator Mulvihill when he spoke after me say that the Opposition has taken the Government on trust. He has not indicated on what matter it has taken the Government on trust. I should like to know from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) what undertakings were given to the Opposition in this regard. Senator Mulvihill claimed that the Opposition did not capitulate to Government threats. If the threat to which Senator Mulvihill was referring is the threat that the Bill will not be proceeded with, that is not a real threat. I would like to make a very simple suggestion. If there is a real concern about the fact that the House of Representatives may have risen I would like to make a very simple suggestion, and I am not being facetious. Next Monday most members of this Parliament will be in Canberra. They will travel to Canberra at enormous expense in order to see the opening of the High Court of Australia and, just as importantly, or maybe more importantly to some of them, one gathers, to look at the Queen.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I won’t be there.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

-Senator Mulvihill would come back for the sake of the Whaling Protection Bill, though. If the Government wants to put up as an obstacle that it would be impossible or unreasonable or impractical to get members of the House of Representatives here, it will have a perfect opportunity next week. Certainly most of the Government members will be here, and it is the Government which needs the Bill passed. I am sure that at least a quorum could be raised in the other House. If there were any problems about the legislation, I am sure that the Opposition would come along to shepherd the whaling legislation through the House of Representatives if it possibly could.

Senator Mulvihill:

– You didn’t give me a chance to talk on immigration the other night. You never buck your guillotine.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– Some people do not need a microphone. Some people. I suspect, do not even need the broadcasting system to have themselves heard around Australia. If the Government wants to meet this problem it can do so. The Government need not have got us into this position. I put it to the Opposition that if it is fair dinkum it can move in that area if it cares to. I ask the Minister what undertakings or threats or whatever, in Senator Mulvihill ‘s terms, have been given on this legislation that Government members do not know about? I know of no undertakings in relation to the civil liberties aspect of this legislation, and I have not heard from the lips of a Government member the suggestion that if the Bill is amended in this way it will not proceed.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I wish to respond very briefly to Senator Martin ‘s earlier invitation to me to indicate my reaction at least to her suggestion that she might be prepared to split her amendment and enable separate votes to be taken on what might to some of us appear to be more attractive and less attractive features of her amendment. As far as I am concerned I would support certainly that part of her amendment which would extend the proscriptions in this Bill to residents of Australia engaged in whaling operations beyond the 200-mile limit. I would not be prepared to support the other part of her amendment.

The reason I would take that attitude is that I, personally, would be prepared to support any part of this legislation which would maximise the world-wide protection of whales in every way that is conceivably possible within Australian constitutional competence. However, the difficulty I have about accepting that amendment, or indeed any other amendment in this chamber, is the very difficulty to which Senator Martin has referred in her challenge to Senator Chaney, the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment. That is that it is our firm understanding on this side of the House that if any amendment of any kind, colour, or shape is passed by this chamber, the Bill will not be returned tonight to the other House and it will go into limbo for two or three months until we resume. To that extent the legislation will be delayed and we will no doubt be blamed for it, not only by the whales but also by those who speak on their behalf. That would be a most unfortunate position to be in because all of us want this legislation enacted as soon as possible. That is the reason why 1 have to say that I could not support any amendment, however tempted I might be to support some part of it.

While I am on my feet let me respond briefly to the civil libertarian argument which has been causing me considerable irritation, although not anguish, during this debate. I am afraid that I do not see the extraterritorial operation of a law as being in itself a civil libertarian question. I do not see civil liberties questions as being raised simply by virtue of whether an activity that is illegal here may be legal somewhere else, and vice versa. What seems to me to be a matter of civil libertarian concern is the nature of the law in question. It is a matter of carefully examining the policy and the principle which lie behind any particular law, looking at the objectives that the law is designed to serve and the means that that law employs to serve that objective. Here the objective is the maximisation world-wide of the protection of whales. The object of this legislation is not to protect whales within Australian territorial waters. It is to protect, so far as it is humanly possible within Australia’s constitutional competence, the position of whales world-wide. To that extent it seems to me that the policy is defensible and that the proscription of activity by people operating extraterritorially does not in itself raise any different civil libertarian a question than does the proscription of that activity within Australia’s geographical territorial sea boundaries.

It seems to me that there is- I refer briefly to Senator Thomas’s preoccupation with the legal notion of domicile- some protection, if protection be sought and be thought legitimate for people who go to Japan, Canada or somewhere else, to establish a base there and engage in whaling activities from there while retaining their Australian citizenship. The concept of domicile is pretty much co-extensive with the concept of residence as a matter of law. The difference between the notions of residence and domicile is the intention of the person concerned. One can establish a change of domicile if one can establish to the satisfication of whichever court is determining this matter something in the nature of an intention to reside permanently in the particular location. Under the circumstances postulated by Senator Thomas about some poor benighted Western Australian from Albany going overseas to re-establish himself in the only occupation that he knows- killing sentient living beings with high-order central nervous systems and with a very well demonstrated capacity to feel pain and fear- if that human being feels that is the only way he can make his living and he goes overseas and establishes himself in some base in which to engage in this activity, I have no real doubt that in that situation there would be regarded as having been established a change of domicile as far as that person is concerned, which would regrettably to my mind take him outside the operation of this Bill.

Those who are concerned with that aspect of it, the over-reach of the legislation to casual, transient or inadvertent breaches of the law, I do not think need be concerned. For all of those reasons I would reject- although with some regret so far as one aspect of Senator Martin’s amendment is concerned- the amendments that have been proposed, and urge the Senate to vote for the Bill as it stands.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– It is a matter of judgment when to intervene in a debate like this and I meant no disrespect to Senator Chipp ‘s request, but the night is short and we have a number of Bills to get through. I was merely trying to contribute to the debate as constructively as possible. I would like to pick up the various points which have been made by putting them perhaps in the context of Senator Rocher’s comments, which I think throw up the difficulties and the conflict which is inherent in the attitude which has been put forward by those who are promoting this amendment.

I would like to quote Senator Rocher, not exactly, but I am sure that he will correct me if I am too inexact. He made the point that in his view one should make a law which is extraterritorial only in very special circumstances. He went on to say that we should give good reasons for any extraterritorial capacity which is given to any law because it detracts from the sum of liberties which are available. In that context half of the amendment which is being put forward does precisely that: it extends the extraterritorial jurisdiction of this bit of legislation, not only to Australian citizens but also to residents of Australia. From that point of view there is a fundamental conflict between the point of view which Senator Rocher put forward and the last half of the amendment which he says he supports. In the same way it seemed to me that my colleague, Senator Thomas- who was concerned about the point of domicile- missed the fundamental point that the requirement of domicile is a limiting factor on the operation of this legislation and in fact reduces the number of people to whom it applies extraterritorially rather than increasing it. So it applies only to those Australian citizens who live in Australia and intend to reside permanently in Australia. Again I believe that my colleague has perhaps the wrong end of the amendment and ought to reconsider his support of it.

There are two fundamental points in Senator Martin’s amendment, and she drew attention to them. In fact I think that Senator Chipp rose to speak on them. First, there is the extension to residents; and secondly, there is the exemption of Australian citizens and residents from whaling which takes place in accordance with the International Whaling Commission. Let me explain the Government’s stance on those two points. I suppose that we have taken some regard of the point of view which has been expressed by Senator Rocher. In any case it is a matter of judgment of the extent to which extraterritorial application is given to laws. The judgment of the Government has been that it ought to legislate to cover Australian citizens wherever in the world they may indulge in whaling, but not to cover those people whose only connection with Australia is a period of residence. I agree that that is a matter of judgment. But after all, residents of Australia, whilst they get some of the advantages of living here, do not get all of the advantages. It is a distinction which can be drawn.

An Australian resident does not have all the rights of an Australian citizen, nor does he have all the duties of an Australian citizen. So the distinction is there. If there is a feeling among those who support this amendment that extraterritorial jurisdiction ought to be approached with great care, I would suggest to them that they should find the form of the section as it stands at the moment more acceptable in that respect than it would be if the amendment was carried. With respect to why we should not exempt such Australian citizens and residents from whaling which is in accordance with the International Whaling Commission, the attitude of the Government is simply this: It would like to see whaling stopped throughout the world. It believes whaling should cease. It has set itself the task within the Commission, and by its use of its own power to make laws in Australia, of doing what it can to ensure that happens.

So it does not regard the whaling which is permitted within the confines of the international whaling conventions as being something which it must approve. It is entitled to make its own policy decision about its attitude to whaling throughout the world. That policy, which has been expressed very clearly by both the responsible Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), is a policy which, as I understand it, has the very serious support of most of the honourable senators opposite- Senator Mulvihill, Senator Evans and so on- and the very strong support of most honourable senators on this side of the chamber. It is being put down in this legislation on the basis that within our legislative competence we do not want Australian citizens engaged even in whaling activities which come within the convention. That is a policy decision of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. We are not, in some follow-on way, reliant on an international convention; we are reliant on the decisions which have been made by the Government of Australia. I think that decision has the near unanimous support of this Parliament.

I am as puzzled as Senator Evans by the civil libertarian aspects of this matter. I believe that it is stretching a point to put this matter in terms of civil liberties. It is a question of some restriction on the ability of some Australians to indulge in economic activities outside Australia’s territorial jurisdiction. That is the narrow point on which we are arguing. We know that whales are under threat. We know that there is pirate whaling. The Government is taking what steps it can to ensure that that ceases. The matter really is as simple as that. All the precedents honourable senators might like to point to in other pieces of legislation do not help very much.

Senator Martin made much in her speech at the second reading stage about why something that was legal where it happened should be illegal under Australian law. I may be putting her argument very broadly, but I think she posed that as one of the problems she saw. Yet in the Crimes (Foreign Incursion and Recruitment) Act- an Act which may deal with matters of foreign affairs significance- what is prohibited may well be legal at the place where it is occurring. It might be quite legal for a person to be a mercenary in some other country, but we still say that, as an act of policy of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, such a deed is illegal and can be punished under Australian law. Quite the same principle applies in this case. It is a matter of judgment whether in any circumstance a government extends the principle to its citizens who are outside its territorial jurisdiction. It is a matter of judgment whether a government extends the principle to its residents who are outside its territorial jurisdiction. In this case the Government has opted not to apply the principle to its residents, who have fewer rights in this country than those which attach to citizens. We have attached the principle to the obligations of Australian citizens.

Senator Wheeldon:

– If that civil liberties argument were carried to its logical conclusion, murder on the high seas would be an unpunishable offence.-

Senator CHANEY:

– I thank the honourable senator for the interjection. After all, what is a crime is described by statute. Let me respond to Senator Martin’s argument. A crime is what the law says is a crime. If the law defines an act as a crime, be it murder, fraud or some form of company malfeasance, it really does not make any difference. It is simply easier to identify murder as something we would wish to have punished wherever it occurs. The Commonwealth Government, by decision, believes that whaling, wherever it occurs, ought not to be conducted by Australian citizens.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I would like to make three quick points. If I have misled anyone by the use of the term ‘civil liberties’, I will call the rose by another name. I wonder what Senator Evans would have said about the termination of pregnancy legislation in Queensland. One draft suggested that a woman who went interstate and had an abortion legally in another State would be prosecuted on her return to Queensland under Queensland law. Whilst I know there might be some other parallel in the law, I am sure that most people would have said that civil liberties were at issue. Some said that the action in question was so important that prosecution was justified.

I do not think the term ‘civil liberties’ has to concern anyone. It is not stretching a point at all. It is a matter of how we treat our citizens and what we consider to be their freedom to be employed- in this case in an industry in another country which is legal. It does not have to involve killing a whale. One can be a deckhand and have the job of chipping rust off the decks of a ship which is engaged in whaling and still fall under the legislation.

On the point of extending the extraterritorial provision, it is a question of consistency. I admit that by including residents one extends the number of people potentially affected. Nevertheless there is a restriction of the circumstances under which any Australian citizen or resident would be affected. I said that there were two principles in one sentence. One was the position of residents as against citizens and the other related to extraterritoriality. Senator Chaney said that a resident does not have all the rights and duties of a citizen. He went on to refer to the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act. I quote very briefly from section 6 ( 2 ) of that Act. It states:

A person shall not be taken to have committed an offence against this section unless-

at the time of the doing of the act that is alleged to constitute the offence, the person-

was an Australian citizen; or

not being an Australian citizen, was ordinarily resident in Australia; or

at any time during the period of one year immediately preceding the doing of that act, the person was present in Australia for a purpose connected with that act.

Such a person could have been present in Australia for a few hours; he does not have to be a citizen or resident under those circumstances. Nevertheless, persons ordinarily resident in Australia are included in that Act. There is nothing new in the amendment. It could be accepted. I suggest that that is not the best precedent that could have been chosen. It certainly leaves me unpersuaded.

The point about legislative competence is not denied; the legislative wisdom is. The Government certainly has the right to legislate in this way. We suggest that this is an inappropriate way. When I spoke earlier about the categories of extraterritorial legislation we have, I indicated that there is no exception when one puts it into the international conventions category or the foreign affairs category. I reiterate what the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) said in the Senate in his second reading speech on the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Bill. He said that one of the bases for the law was the need to preserve international relations and that the Bill was a proposal which served to do just that. I quote from page 364 of Senate Hansard of 7 March 1978 where the AttorneyGeneral stated that the Government had agreed: that it was not appropriate to attempt to prohibit enlistment outside Australia or to regulate overseas military activities of Australians- except incursion activities dealt with under clause 6- but it was desirable to control recruitment within Australia of mercenaries . . .

The Government has shifted its position a long way in terms of consistency in that Bill on the basis on which this legislation is claimed to be consistent. Consistency is not present in this Bill. The precedents that one would seek would be better served by the passage of the amendment. I remain unpersuaded that there are any overpowering arguments on certainly the first half of my amendment. I do not draw back from either pan of my amendment. If Senator Evans had wished seriously to put a proposition to the Senate that perhaps part of the amendment could be carried it was competent for him at any time to indicate that that would happen and appropriate arrangements could have been made. I will not withdraw from either point in my amendment on the basis of general statements like that. I believe that both points are important. I stand by them. I regret that the Government, in the timing of this Bill, has made it impossible for the Committee to address itself truly to the desirability of this clause.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– I will speak for not more than a few seconds. I think that some of the points that Senator Martin just made should be dealt with, however briefly. I do not believe that what she had to say at the latter part of her last remark about the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act really is germane to what the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) said. The point that the Minister made with regard to that Act was in answer to the point that we were prescribing by law the commission by Australians outside this country of acts which were legal in the country in which they were being performed. In fact, already we have the precedent of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act. No matter what one may think of that Act, we did precisely that. Although the levying of mercenaries may be completely legal in some countries, we would prosecute Australian citizens for commiting that act.

One can refer to that Act to deal with another point which Senator Martin made, that is, that a person may not be actively engaged in whaling in the sense of actually harpooning whales. Scraping a whaling ship was the activity to which Senator Martin referred.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– Doing a job.

Senator WHEELDON:

-Yes, doing a job. That is precisely so. If somebody went overseas and was raised as a mercenary in some army which was about to invade another country and if he was working in the cookhouse serving the porridge for breakfast he would be covered by the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act. It would not necessarily have to be proved before a court that he had shot somebody. If he was merely a member of an armed force which we regarded as coming within the ambit of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act he would be covered although his duties were identical to those to which Senator Martin referred when she was talking about the people working on the whaling ship but not actually shooting whales.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– That was not the point I was making.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I thought that was what the honourable senator said. That was how I understood it. I think my colleagues also understood that to be the point she was making.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is a great encouragement!

Senator WHEELDON:

– I think some of Senator Martin’s colleagues understood it to be that way too, which may be even less encouragement but I will refer to it. The other point made by Senator Martin on the civil liberties matter was that people felt concerned about the fact that the ill-fated Queensland abortion Bill apparently provided for the commission of an offence by those who had an abortion in another State where that was legal. I do not believe that is an appropriate analogy with legislation of this kind. I would have imagined that the objection that those people who opposed the Queensland Bill would have taken would have been that we are dealing with sovereign States within the Commonwealth of Australia working in some sort of a comity where there are laws. It would be an unusual practice for people, on going into another State of the Commonwealth and performing an action which was legal there, to be prosecuted on their return to the State from which they had come.

The point that Senator Evans made about the nature of this Bill shows the distinct difference. This is a Bill which follows the convention dealing with the eradication of whaling everywhere by all or most nations and certainly all the parties to the Convention. The only parallel with the Queensland abortion Bill would be if there were some sort of convention of Australian States about their abortion laws. That does not apply. It is a different situation with a different approach to the law whatever other superficial similarities there may be between those laws.

Question put:

That the words proposed to beinserted (Senator Martin’s amendment) be inserted.

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

AYES: 8

NOES: 49

Majority…… 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Fisheries Amendment (Whale Protection) Bill 1980

Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Amendment Bill 1980

Bills agreed to.

Whale Protection Bill 1980, Fisheries Amendment (Whale Protection) Bill 1980 and Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Amendment Bill 1980 reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Readings

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

page 2725

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2725

NORTHERN TERRITORY (COMMONWEALTH LANDS) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 May on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– The purpose of the Northern Territory (Commonwealth Lands) Bill 1980, as explained by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) in his second reading speech, is to confirm the validity of notifications of the acquisition of lands by the Commonwealth in the

Northern Territory under section 70 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 and gazetted in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S 1 16 on 29 June 1978. The Opposition does not oppose this legislation but we must not lose the opportunity or reminding the Government that this son of Bill should not be necessary; in other words, things should have been done properly in the first place. The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) in the other place- one of the longer serving members of Parliament- drew on his experiences to remind the Government of similar bandaid jobs. Certainly he has been in the Parliament longer than I have, but perhaps he is not as charitable as I and certainly he has not had the experience that I have had in the Public Service. Nevertheless, that will not stop me reading from the House of Representatives Hansard of 20 May part of the comments he made. The honourable member for Wills said:

I remind the House of the remarkable incompetence that this Bill displays. The fact that the Government has to bring in legislation such as this to overcome a piece of administrative neglect back in 1978 shows this incompetence. It is a remarkable achievement even for this Government. I remind the House that the Government now has an average of one major blunder of this sort a year. The New South Wales redistribution was passed before the 1977 Commonwealth election which, of course, did not comply with the law. It had to bc withdrawn and hurriedly brought back to the House and passed by the Parliament. Then there was the blunder on the brandy excise legislation two or three years ago. This was found to be totally misconceived inasmuch as that the brandy was not produced in Australia. There was already an excess of supply and there had to bc a rapid change.

About three years ago a States Grants Bill for Aboriginal affairs passed through the House. Honourable members opposite, through their Minister, adopted the policy of bypassing the Senate. They did not bother to send that Bill to the Senate. It went to His Excellency the Governor-General with the necessary signatures on it attesting that all the requirements of the Constitution had been complied with. Of course all that Bill had to go through all the procedures again. Then there was the notable case which caused a great deal of disadvantage to one of the local businesses in Canberra. The Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Council brought down a report in which a firm was mentioned quite erroneously. These are just samples of the incompetence with which this country has been inflicted since this Government seized power. Those are just the cases we know about. There must be dozens of other . . .

Whilst the debate in the other place was brief, it was fairly interesting. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) took the opportunity to eulogise about the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder), who was not in the House at the time. Since there are elections in the Northern Territory in a couple of weeks, one can guess where he was. In this regard, it is pleasing to see that Senator Kilgariff has returned to this chamber. The Minister for Administrative

Services made some interesting comments in his second reading speech. He stated:

Whilst it is possible that particular difficulties between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory may be capable of resolution by understandings between governments any such understandings would not bind third parties which might seek to use the legal issues to obstruct the policies and activities of both governments.

The Government’s record in resolving difficulties between itself and State or Territory governments is not reassuring at all. It is quite clear that it is much better to have good legislation at the beginning. I have made this point in debates on matters concerning Aboriginal affairs. We cannot rely on the ability to resolve through mutual understanding or gentleman’s agreements. The other comment I found interesting concerned land for defence purposes, such as that at Pine Gap. Pine Gap is the space base outside Alice Springs. There has been much comment on the role of Pine Gap. In answer to questions in this place I have been assured that Pine Gap would not be a prime target in time of conflict between the major powers. Yet, we see that it is part of an area set aside for defence purposes. I am afraid that the answers have not given me satisfaction. There have been a number of conflicting stories about these reports from Boyce and others, and they worry me. Certainly I would not like to live in Alice Springs should the major powers start sniping at one another. Due to the lateness of the hour I will not canvass this matter; I indicate simply that the Opposition does not oppose this Bill.

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

(10.36)- The Government thanks the Opposition for allowing the speedy passage of the Northern Territory (Commonwealth Lands) Bill 1 980. 1 commend the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2726

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 May, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

- Mr President, it may be appropriate to debate cognately the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1980 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1980.

The PRESIDENT:

– If it is the wish of the Senate to debate these Bills cognately, that is so ordered.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– The Senate is debating cognately the States Grants (Schools Assistance Amendment) Bill 1980 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1980. They are two machinery Bills whose purpose it is to adjust grants in respect of cost increases. The Opposition does not oppose these Bills but wishes to make some comments about education while they are before the Senate. Most of my comments will be in relation to the former Bill, which involves schools assistance, but at the outset I would like to make a few comments about the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill.

A dismal picture is presented of tertiary education in Australia during the next year or so. In the other place today a statement was put down by the Minister for Education (Mr Fife) setting out the guidelines for Education Commissions for 1 98 1 . On page 5 of the statement made by Mr Fife it is indicated that universities and colleges of advanced education, compared to this year, will be in a stagnant position next year. The total recurrent grants will be the same next year as they are this year- at an amount of $1,1 96. 8m. The capital and equipment grants, however, will be lower next year than they are this year, that is, they will drop from $ 100.4m to $82.7m. So in universities and colleges of advanced education in the future recurrent grants will be stagnant and lower capital and equipment grants will be available to them. In other words, the universities and colleges of advanced education will go backwards in the future under the funding provided by the Government.

On the same page of the Minister’s statement, we find that technical and further education, which is an area that has been long neglected, will remain very much the Cinderella. There will be a marginal increase in this area, and only a marginal increase. There will be an increase in general recurrent grants from $43. 3m to $45m, an increase of only $1.7m. Specific recurrent grants and capital and equipment grants will remain exactly the same. There will be hardly any movement at all in the technical and further education field, a field that is crying out for funds so that the trained people who are needed in Australia can be provided.

I said earlier that I would concentrate most of my remarks on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill, and therefore I will be confining most of my remarks to schools in Australia. Before I leave the document which the Minister for Education put down today in the House of Representatives, I should like to point out something on page 10 under the heading Government School Programs’. Government school programs next year will remain virtually static, and I make this point because it is germane to an argument I will present later this evening. The general recurrent grant will remain exactly the same, as will the amount provided for disadvantaged schools. The amount provided for special education and capital grants will also remain the same next year. The only increase in the government school grants next year will be a slight increase from $23. 5m to $25. 7m in migrant education. This means that there will be virtually no growth in funding provided by this Government for government school programs next year.

I comment at this stage that the Whitlam Labor Government set up machinery to allow massive increases in assistance to education in Australia. I well remember, before I came to this place, Mr Whitlam in his 1972 policy speech saying:

We will establish an Australian Schools Commission to examine and determine the needs of students in Government and non-government primary, secondary and technical schools.

I shall write before Christmas to a small group of leading educationists, including representatives of the State and Catholic systems. I shall write . . . requesting for all schools . . . recommendations upon ‘their financial needs and appropriate means of providing for these funds’. lt will not be necessary to delay the appointment of the Commission until legislation has been passed by the new Parliament in 1973.

Indeed that happened on 12 December 1972, when Mr Whitlam announced the setting up of an interim committee for the Australian Schools Commission. Towards the end of 1973 the Schools Commission was established by legislation which passed through the Parliament, although not without difficulty. It is worth reminding the Senate that the Liberal Party strenuously opposed its establishment. Only a spark of conscience by the then Country Party allowed the passage of the legislation. The Whitlam Government’s commitment to education can be readily seen by reference to outlays on education as a percentage of the total Budget. The percentage of the total Budget for the three years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 was 3.7 per cent, 3.9 per cent and 4.3 per cent respectively. The year 1 973-74 was the first year for which the Whitlam Government was able to set down a full budgetary program for education, and there were massive increases in the three years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76, when the outlays on education as a percentage of the total Budget were 7 per cent, 9. 1 per cent and 8.4 per cent respectively. From that time the Budgets were those of the current Government, and the impetus of the Labor years is still evident. Also evident is a gradual whittling away of the percentage of the total Budget allocated to education. In 1976-77 that percentage was 9 per cent, which was almost equivalent to the highest percentage that had occurred in the years of the Whitlam Government that is, in 1974-75. In 1977-78 the figure was 8.8 per cent, and in 1978-79 it was down to 8.6 per cent. In 1979-80 the figure was down to 8. 1 per cent.

In recent years much has been said about target resource standards, or what are sometimes called the Karmel targets. On some occasions it has been stated that because these targets have been reached we should be able to slacken our efforts on education funding. Some people use the same argument to show that the funds should remain about static. I shall outline why that should not be so. Prior to doing so, however, I want to give a short history of the establishment of these targets. In 1973 the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission determined target standards to be attained in government schools by 1979. Those standards are mentioned on page 62 of the Committee’s report, and I quote: . . an overall average increase of at least 40 per cent in the use of recurrent resources per pupil in government primary schools and 35 per cent in government secondary schools.

Using an index known as the Schools Recurrent Resources Index, ratings for individual state school systems were developed. The overall sixState average index rating was set at 100. It was this base against which increases in the use of resources were to be measured. The individual State school ratings are listed in a table which I will seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. The table is headed ‘Schools Recurrent Resources Index Government Schools 1972’. It can be seen from that table that most of the schools are fairly well bunched around the 100 average, but there are some exceptions. For instance, New South Wales was one per cent below the mean for its primary schools and 5 per cent below the mean for secondary schools. Queensland was one per cent below for secondary schools, and in Western Australia the primary schools were 3 per cent below the mean. A reference to the table will reveal a few others that were slightly above that mean of 100. 1 seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator COLSTON:

-I thank the Senate. In summary, the original Karmel targets were that an average schools recurrent resources index rating for all States of 140 for primary schools and 135 for secondary schools should be achieved by 1979. In 1975 the Schools Commission endorsed the Karmel targets but extended the time in which they were to be attained. Under the new timetable the primary school target of 140 was to be reached by 1980. The secondary school target of 135 was to be reached by 1 982. In its report for the triennium 1979-81 the Schools Commission indicated that it was not satisfied with the method of illustrating resources and introduced a new approach. It reviewed the target resource standards and concluded that a substantial change in them could not be justified.

However, instead of expressing the targets as percentage increases above the 1972 base year, it estimated the average per capita costs which would enable the provision of the target resource standards. These were $845 for a primary student and $1,446 for a secondary student. These figures are expressed in 1979 price levels. The average per capita costs do not include the value of Schools Commission’s specific purpose programs. The estimated value of these across all government systems was then $33 for a primary student and $25 for a secondary student. However, on page 29 in the same report the Schools Commission compared the 1976 index ratings of government schools with the original Karmel targets and concluded:

Clearly, most government systems have attained, or will attain, the original targets by, or earlier than, 1979. Nevertheless, . . . this may not be the case in New South Wales, the largest government system, at either primary or secondary levels, nor the case in Queensland secondary schools.

On 22 November 1979 the Minister for Education tabled a report entitled ‘Progress in Education 1979-80’. The report contained data provided by the Schools Commission showing the position of States in relation to the recurrent resource targets set by the Karmel Committee. This data is given in a table headed ‘Indices of Per Student Expenditure in Government Schools in 1977-78 in Relation to Karmel Targets’. I seek leave to incorporate that table in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator COLSTON:

-I thank the Senate. In this table the level of recurrent resources in each State in 1977-78 is indexed in relation to the Karmel targets which were set at a base value of 100. Each State’s progress is shown as a percentage of the target. A score of 108 thus represents a position of 8 per cent above the target, a score of 95 indicates a position of 5 per cent below the target. In New South Wales- I will point out those areas where the scores are below targetsecondary schools are shown at 98, 2 per cent below target; Queensland secondary schools 95, 5 per cent below target; and all the other areas are above the target. Despite the satisfying indices in some States it should be remembered that both the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission and the Schools Commission have outlined illustrative configurations of what might be expected in schools, given that they reach resource targets. I will quote from page 63 of the Interim Committee’s report. This is the type of configuration which the Interim Committee of the Australian Schools Commission suggested could be expected in schools if the resource targets were reached. It states:

  1. All teachers to have available one working week annually or a month triennially, for professional enrichment purposes, with their normal responsibilities taken care of by competent staff.
  2. b) Relieving staff to be provided immediately a teacher is absent from duty.
  3. The amount of time approved for the conduct of recognised administrative duties by teachers in schools to be the equivalent of about 10 per cent of staff working hours.
  4. One field consultant/adviser to be provided for every 60 teachers in service.
  5. An expansion in the number of primary specialist teachers, which will enable the release of teachers from direct classroom duties for two hours per week. (0 All new teachers to enjoy a 10 per cent reduced work load during their first year of service.
  6. A reduction in the maximum sizes of class groups to 32 pupils at primary and junior secondary levels and 25 students in the senior secondary forms.
  7. The numbers of ancillary staff and the amount of equipment to be increased, in terms of 1 972 levels, by 100 per cent for primary schools and 75 per cent for secondary schools.

Even a brief examination of this configuration reveals that some of these targets, which are for illustrative purposes only, have not been reached. If we look only at the first two that I have mentioned we will see that they have not been reached in most schools. I would also like to bring the Senate’s attention to the configuration of the Schools Commission report for the triennium 1979-1981, set out on pages 34 and 35. I had intended to quote these but due to the lateness of the hour I seek leave to incorporate them in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows-

  1. teaching staff sufficient to ensure that: infants classes need not exceed 25 students primary or junior secondary classes need not exceed 30 students senior secondary classes need not exceed 25 students;
  2. relieving teachers are available when teachers are absent from duty;
  3. 10 per cent of the total staff working hours to be distributed among staff for recognised administrative duties;
  4. enough additional primary teachers to allow release of teachers from direct classroom instruction for two hours per week:
  5. new teachers to have a 10 per cent reduced working load in the first year of service;
  6. f) an average of five days per year available for attendance at in-service programs aimed at professional development;
  7. classroom aides at the rate of one full-time equivalent per 250 students in primary and 1 50 in secondary;
  8. clerical assistance equivalent on a full-time basis to one per 400 students in primary schools and one per 200 students in secondary schools;
  9. specialist help from outside the school as necessary, but in any case at a rate, the full-time equivalent of which would bc one professional per 600 staff in primary and one per 400 in secondary;
  10. sufficient cash resources to obviate the necessity for semi-compulsory fees in government schools for the purchase of needed equipment and consumable resources.

I thank the Senate. I will discuss two of the configurations listed. One states:

  1. relieving teachers are available when teachers are absent from duty;

In many schools we still find that sufficient relieving teachers are not available when teachers are absent from duty. I know it is not always good to use personal experiences as examples, but I will mention what happened in a school which one of my children attends. His teacher was absent from duty, a relieving teacher was not available and a teaching aide took the class for the day. This is illustrative of what happens in some schools. I refer to item (j) in that configuration which states: sufficient cash resources to obviate the necessity for semicompulsory fees in government schools for the purchase of needed equipment and consumable resources.

There are very few schools in Australia where there are sufficient cash resources so that semicompulsory fees do not have to be paid. It is certainly no comfort to those in schools throughout Australia for legislators to look at figures that we have looked at and to decide that education funding need not be increased. I am sure that legislators should go out into the schools to see the problems which exist because hiding behind the official figures are definite cases of hardship which can be alleviated only by finance being made available. To illustrate that these cases of hardship do exist I shall cite some information supplied to me showing the difficulties in three Queensland secondary schools which are in a metropolitan area close to Brisbane. I will not identify the schools because I think that the students and teachers in those schools should have their privacy respected. I will quote from part of a report that was sent to me. In school A, under heading ‘class size ‘, it is stated:

There are 107 classes of between 30 and 35-5 Year 12, 9 Year 1 1 (the recommended number is 25 in Senior classes), 9 Year 10, 35 Year 9 and 48 Year 8 (the recommendation is 30 students in each class at these year levels ).

The overlarge classes in the Senior school make adequate correction of work, especially in English and History impossible. Students at this standard are expected to write longer pieces of work and have a more searching approach to the topic. How can one teacher be expected to mark well 33, 34 or 35 in-depth studies at a time?

The year 8 students have come from primary school, many of them from very small primary schools. They need extra care and attention so that they can adapt to the conditions in high school and so that they can develop slowly into good students who aim for success. With over 30 students in 49 of these Year 8 classes, many of them become ‘lost’ and drift aimlessly. Unfortunately, many more become discipline problems because in this all-important year too many teachers just do not have enough time to talk to the students as individuals, to son out any problems and, in general, to see the students in Year 8 as the mere children they are. So much time and patience is required to guide Year 8 ‘s and to set the foundations for their future life, both at school and later. Sadly, teachers are not given enough of this valuable time and their workloads try their patience to the point that the few suffer so that the many can be given some semblance of ‘education’. Teachers are having ‘to make do’, ‘to just keep going’ as best they can with the ever-worsening conditions and the future life of our city is bound to suffer.

That gives an indication of what happens in some of the schools in Queensland- this is one of them- where the classes are in fact too large. I refer now to the situation at a school which I shall call school B. Under the heading ‘Specialist teachers ‘, the report states:

Physical Education teachers are needed to enable the school to introduce the Years 1 1 and 12 Board Course which is available to most other students in the State. Why should the students at . . . high school be denied the right to choose a subject merely because not enough teachers in that area have been allocated to the school?

Remedial teachers, or special teachers who will bring a different son of expertise to the teaching of slow-learning, emotionally disturbed children and children with behavioural and social problems, are needed. It is not only the children who need help but also the teachers who have to cope with the problems these students cause in the classroom. At present this school (population 1,325) has no remedial or Resource Teacher. Remedial teachers are required to help the many students who are unable to cope with the secondary level syllabus, many of whom had been receiving special help at primary school.

Finally, I shall quote from the report about a school I shall call school C. Under the heading Student Facilities and Accommodation’, it states:

Some attempt is made to give the students a swimming unit in Physical Education- surely most desirable with Queensland’s climatic conditions. However, it is impossible to teach students anything in 15 minutes, the maximum amount of time students have in the pool. The average lesson’ lasts 5 to 10 minutes, depending on how fast the students can walk the one mile distance to the nearest pool.

Later, under the same heading, it states:

Broken chairs have to be used in some classrooms so that students may at least have something, of sons, to sit on. This situation does not allow them to give maximum concentration to the lesson.

I think the last sentence is probably the educational understatement of the year. I mentioned these three schools and the conditions they are in to illustrate that there are still grave problems in the schools. It is not a time to cut back education funding; it is not a time to keep education at a static level. There are still a great many needs that have to be fulfilled within individual schools. We can see these needs if we actually go into the schools and look at the problems that exist. I repeat that there is no justification for funding to remain static while this type of situation prevails. Teachers, parents and students expect the Government to provide adequate funds for education in Australia. The guidelines I referred to earlier in my speech do not give us the hope that this will occur. I repeat that the Opposition does not oppose these two Bills, but it did want to use the two Bills to raise some of the problems that exist in education in Australia at present.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE (Victoria- Minister for Social Security) ( 1 1.5)- I thank Senator Colston for his interest in the two Bills, and in the announcement of the levels of funding for the programs of the Schools Commission and the Tertiary Education Commission for the calendar year 1981. These programs will be a major part of the Government’s support for education in the States and the Northern Territory and together will amount to expenditure of $2, 14 1.8m in 1981 compared with $2, 136.6m in 1980 in constant estimated December 1979 prices. The Minister for Education (Mr Fife) made a substantial statement today with regard to the guidelines for the education commissions, and I do not propose to cover that ground in any detail, but I should draw attention, in view of some of the statements of Senator Colston, to the statement that the total funding of education must be seen as a joint effort of both the Commonwealth and the States in addition to resources contributed from the private sector. Public expenditure on education is expected to grow to $6.5 billion in 1979-80, an increase of more than 6 per cent in real terms since the year 1976-77.

Some mention has been made of class sizes and expenditure, and a great deal of detail has been researched by Senator Colston. I will draw the attention of the Minister to his comments. If there are any matters that require explanation for him, I will see that that is attended to. I point out that the rapid growth in enrolments across the whole education sector, which made such a heavy demand on resources in the 1960s and early 1970s, has now eased. Student numbers overall are tending to stabilise but there are still increases in some sectors. School enrolments declined for the first time in 1979 and are projected to continue to decline until the late 1 980s. Within the overall trend for schools there was a decline in government school numbers last year while in non-government schools there was a small rise. This brings us to the point that, although government school programs for 1 98 1 remain static, enrolments in that sector are declining and therefore expenditure per pupil in government schools must increase.

Senator Colston made some remarks with regard to target resource standards. I am informed that the Schools Commission has advised that all government school systems have now reached the targets. The majority of non-government schools have recurrent resources 30 per cent below government schools. The target resource standards per se have not changed; only the index method has been revised. Some points were raised by Senator Colston with regard to configuration. I point out that the Commission ‘s resource configuration is for illustrative purposes only. It is for the school system authorities to decide how their expenditure is distributed. For example, they may make a choice between lower class sizes and more teacher aides or whatever configuration suits their purposes. I thank the Opposition for its speedy passage of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill, and I commend them to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2731

STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 20 May, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2731

TASMANIAN NATIVE FORESTRY AGREEMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 1 May on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

- Mr President, I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the Senate to have a cognate debate convering this Bill and the Tasmania Agreement (Launceston Precision Tool Annexe) Bill.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is it the wish of the Senate that that course be followed? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Senator WRIEDT:
Tasmania

– I rise to speak briefly on the Tasmanian Native Forestry Agreement Bill. This Bill provides for payments to Tasmania in the four financial years commencing 1 979-80 of $ 100,000 per annum for forestry development. I have no argument with that, of course, because Tasmania, being in the difficult position that it is in respect of development, is glad of whatever crumbs may fall from the table of the Federal Department of the Treasury. The interesting thing is to compare the second reading speech of this legislation with the same Bill last year. In that Bill, read in this chamber on 28 March 1979, the AttorneyGeneral, Senator Durack, on behalf of his colleague in the other place said:

The implementation of that program -

That is the development of native forestry- will also assist in alleviating the current unemployment situation in that State.

I might add by way of interpolation, that as we are off the air and as there are no members of the media present, I am not gaining any publicity from what I have to say. I just want to state the facts so that they are in the record.

Senator Colston:

– A lot of people read Hansard.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Unfortunately, not enough. The Minister went on to say:

In 1976, the Premier of Tasmania sought Commonwealth assistance to combat unemployment in his State.

He then goes on to refer to the report of Sir Bede Callaghan who was to inquire into the structure of the industry in that State, and so on. The Minister went on to say:

The inquiry found that Tasmania had problems not encountered in other States. After considering the report, the Government has agreed that it would adopt a considerate attitude to policy-making affecting Tasmania.

Senator Lewis, I am sure, will listen with interest to the rest of what I have to say and I would hope with sympathy. Last year the Bill provided for loans by the Commonwealth of $136,000 a year for the five year period commencing on 1 July 1 978 on the basis that expenditure is matched by the State. In recognition of the time taken for forestry projects to yield a return on investment, the terms of the loans provide for a 20-year deferment of loan repayments. In reading that speech last year I, and no doubt many others, thought that this was the best that Tasmania could do, despite the fact that the Tasmanian Government had sought a grant and we were in fact dealing in comparatively small amounts, namely $ 136,000. But we did a little bit of homework on what this involved, bearing in mind that there was this 20-year deferment of loan repayments, that is interest, and that the whole of the repayment period was 40 years in which the interest would be capitalised, and there would be repayments on capital and interest over that 40 year period. The total amount of the loan to Tasmania was around $600,000. Having done a bit of homework on this we came up with a calculation that showed that over 40 years Tasmania would pay back no less than $ 1 7m. Let us stop to think of that. It is a loan of $600,000 from the Commonwealth to a State which the Commonwealth admits has difficulties that no other State has. That State- I suppose the State with the least resources in the Commonwealth- has to pay back $17m for a loan of $600,000. When I looked at this it did not seen right and so I wrote to the Treasurer (Mr Howard). I asked him whether the calculations were correct and he confirmed, by letter to me, that the calculations were correct. This is a $600,000 loan over five years and Tasmania is paying back $17m for that $600,000 loan. This year- obviously in anticipation of my saying these things- a paragraph has been inserted that does not appear in last year’s second reading speech. Page 3 of the second reading speech reads:

Because of the very long time horizons involved total repayments of capital and interest will be substantially greater than funds advanced by the Commonwealth.

They certainly will. The speech continues:

However, it is a reasonable expectation that returns from timber sales resulting from the program will more than cover the total loan repayments.

That may or may not be true. We hope that it is true. When that second reading speech was prepared in 1 979 the people responsible for it must have known that a $17m debt was being incurred by the Tasmanian Government or governments of the future for a $600,000 loan. This year, in order to cover themselves, they decided to slip that paragraph in almost as an apology. This year, under the new agreement this Bill will provide for loans of $ 100,000 per annum for the four financial years commencing 1979-80. The total amount repayable by Tasmanian governments of the future under the same conditions- that is a 20-year moratorium on capital interest but with interest accruing- on the $400,000 will be $ 12m. So it seems to be a pretty poor deal for a State which the second reading speech admits experiences difficulties that no other State in the Commonwealth has, simply because we lack the resources in Tasmania to generate the income that is available to the States on the mainland. I think that is obvious and there is no need for me to elaborate on it. Anyone who has a simple knowledge of arithmetic would realise that the granting of Commonwealth Government loans involving $400,000 which commits Tasmania to repayments of $12m-last year, aloan of $600,000 committed Tasmanian governments in the future to repay $17m; this has been confirmed by the

Treasurer- illustrates how much real concern there is for Tasmania by this Government.

I am speaking on behalf of Tasmanians when I say that we have no option other than to accept the conditions of this arrangement because if we did not the proposals would not proceed through lack of finance available to the State Government in Tasmania, through the operations of the Federal Government’s continual contraction of payments to that State. I am not asking the Minister to try explaining it because it was explained last year. I have no doubt that if I were to write to the Treasurer again this year he would confirm my calculations as he did last year. I regret that the Commonwealth cannot see fit to be a little more generous in at least providing such comparatively small amounts of money in the form of loans under this legislation and that it cannot be provided in the form of grants to a State which the Government admits has the difficulties that are spelt out in the second reading speech.

Senator WATSON:
Tasmania

– I wish to respond briefly to a couple of remarks made by Senator Wriedt before speaking to the Tasmania Agreement (Launceston Precision Tool Annexe) Bill. Undoubtedly, I would have preferred a repayment and interest basis similar to an agreement concerning the Commonwealth and the State in relation to the soft-wood industry. The terms of that agreement were very much more generous. However, I can assure Senator Wriedt that I have examined this matter and the calculations I have were prepared very carefully by the Tasmanian Forestry Commission. It was of the opinion that there was a definite short and long term benefit to our State, recognising, of course, that the 20-year deferment period gives the State an opportunity to harvest and to sell the produce and to maximise returns therefrom. One must take into account the inflation rate as well. I think, judging from inflation experiences in the past, that Tasmania will be well served by this loan. However, I recognise that it could have been made on a more generous basis but one must look at the relativities with and responsibilities to other States.

Tonight I want to speak briefly on the Launceston Precision Tool Annexe and to outline its history and current developments. This Bill is a recognition by the Commonwealth of the problems suffered in Tasmania. The Bill arises out of the recommendations in a report made 2Vi years ago by Sir Bede Callaghan when he examined the structure of industry and employment in Tasmania. This Bill involves a loan of $343,000 to help with the re-equipment costs associated with the re-establishment of the Precision Tool

Annexe in Launceston. I think it is a further example of the Federal Government’s interest in Tasmania. The Precision Tool Annexe is currently seeking what is known as an 1822 classification. This is a standard for Australian workshops to attain in quality control and it puts them into line with overseas standards. Therefore, we are looking at a world class precision workshop in Launceston. I think that is important.

I shall briefly examine the background to the establishment of this Precision Tool Annexe. Before the Second World War the Tasmanian Government operated one of the best workshops in the State. It had a specialised tool room. During the War the Commonwealth Government recognised the expertise of this workshop situated in the railway workshops in Launceston and conducted by the State Government. It acquired this Annexe as part of the defence mechanism. It was taken over by the Commonwealth and operated by it under the emergency powers. It became a gauge room and a standards laboratory in Tasmania. The Federal Government put up another building and re-equipped this workshop with high class machinery. At the height of this activity it employed something like 120 people on a two shift basis for 12 hours each shift. This arrangement operated basically for the duration of the War and contributed greatly to the Australian War effort. After the War the Commonwealth gave this workshop, which was still located within the complex of the railway workshops in Launceston, to the State Government with the undertaking that the State Government would maintain it for an unspecified period.

After the War the number employed at the Annexe dropped. It got down to about 60 men. It was then managed for some time by General Motors-Holden ’s Ltd. That company ran that workshop for about four to five years. It provided tooling and gauging components for the production of the first Holdens in Australia. So it is of great historical significance. But, of course, in time, with the popularity of the Holden, GMH developed its own workshops in Victoria and it phased out its operations at the Launceston Annexe.

Another company called Sheffield Tool and Gauge moved into the Annexe premises. This was a United States company which ran the workshop for a couple of years. It produced tooling to be used for domestic appliances, dyes and gauges for washing machines, refrigerators and the like. This company moved out after a period of two years and again the premises were taken over by the State Government which ran the operation. The main business came from contracts for aircraft works which accounted for something like 70 per cent to 80 per cent of all the work. But it then ran into a situation due to a change in Commonwealth Government policy. Because of the advent of the Fill work virtually went out of Australia. It was faced with the situation of losing all the expertise in skilled engineering. It disappeared to the United States. Consequently, the numbers employed at the workshop dropped to about 40 or 41 in the early 1970s.

For the Annexe to maintain its existence it had to concentrate on work from local industry. It went about its business attracting work from such firms as Repco. The Precision Tool Annexe provided essential work in the initial years of Repco. It developed what is now a multi-million dollar industry for Launceston in the form of the Repco operation. The Precision Tool Annexe continued to provide services of a high standard to the mines on the west coast of Tasmania and to other manufacturing operations in our State. The numbers employed at the Annexe have since risen. The number employed at present is approximately 87. At the moment the Annexe has a fairly plentiful supply of work.

One of the problems the Annexe faced was that it was within the railway complex. When the Australian National Railways took over the Tasmanian Railways, no recognition was made of the fact that the Precision Tool Annexe had a building right in the centre of the complex. In the arrangements made between the Tasmanian Government and the Commonwealth this operation was forgotten. But within a very short time, the Australian National Railways said: ‘We want you to move out of this location’. So the Annexe was forced to find new premises. Unfortunately, no compensation was offered by the Federal Government under the arrangements through the Australian National Railways. In fact, when the Annexe moved, it was up for a payment of about $3,000 to the Australian National Railways. So it was forced to move in circumstances in which it had very little built-in capital and it faced a dilemma. Fortunately, it moved into fairly modern premises and it has continued to expand.

To give honourable senators some idea of the highly complex nature of the work carried out by the Annexe, at present it is working on a torpedo barrel contract for the Navy. It is manufacturing for the Gould corporation of the United States a motor for the torpedo as part of the Commonwealth Government’s offset program which is providing some pretty important work for this skilled workshop. It also has developed a unique laboratory bench. This is a bench for chemistry classes which has all the facilities built into it and which can be wheeled away into a corner when not in use and wheeled back into an ordinary classroom effectively to make that classroom a science laboratory in very quick time. The first production run involved something like $200,000. Approximately 28 of these benches have been sold out of an initial production run of 30. There is currently quite a lot of interest in Singapore for these benches. I think one has been sold in Darwin and a further eight have been ordered in that area. Other projects involve highly skilled work in conjunction with the Government Aircraft Factories to produce materials for the Nomad, the Jindivik and the Ikara.

Another important feature of its work is that it has recognised its responsibility so far as apprenticeship training is concerned. It is one of the few industries that recognises the need to train skilled fitters, engineers, et cetera. Currently it is employing 16 apprentices, and the extra funds will assist in this direction. Another important part of its work is the close liaison and assistance it provides to an adjacent school, for which the Commonwealth gave some initial funds, and I refer to the Launceston Student Workshop. A fair amount of work of a repetitive nature is handed to the Launceston Student Workshop to provide skills for students who have no hope of attaining a school leaving certificate. They come out of the classroom environment and work for a certain time in this workship to acquire some repetitive skills. The workshop has provided lathes and other equipment, and I believe that in this environment it makes a quite valuable contribution to the training of apprentices and of slow learners. I understand that the students are guided by a very dynamic leader. John Gough is the Annexe’s current manager. I think that we can look forward to a successful future for this company, which works on fairly low margins and has very little capital, but provides employment opportunities and can retain within Australia standards of excellence and skills on a par with equivalent establishments around the world.

I have very much pleasure in supporting this Bill, which provides a loan of $343,000 to a State government. Repayments are to commence on 15 January 1981, and are to be made in 20 equal instalments at 6-monthly intervals, with interest at the long-term bond rate. I believe that many of the Defence heads have now recognised the folly of buying from overseas suppliers so many of their spares and relying so heavily on them for the manufacture of parts. They have run into problems involving freight and being on the end of a production line. Therefore it is extremely important that Australia builds up a defence support capability within its own territories. For this reason, I believe that the Precision Tool Annexe in Launceston can provide a tremendous support to our defence industries in Australia. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE (Victoria- Minister for Social Security) (11.33)- Mr President, I thank Senator Wriedt and Senator Watson for their support and for their comments about the two Bills before the Senate, the Tasmanian Native Forestry Agreement Bill and the Tasmania Agreement (Launceston Precision Tool Annexe) Bill. Both honourable senators have made clear their support for assistance to Tasmania. Senator Wriedt raised the matter of the effect of the interest on the loan under the Native Forestry Agreement. He mentioned the discussion we had had in the Senate when the Bill was dealt with last year, his subsequent discussions with the Treasury and the information he had with regard to the effect of compound interest. I can assure Senator Wriedt that calculations carefully made and checked indicate that it is a reasonable expectation that returns from timber sales resulting from the program will more than cover the total loan repayments. The Tasmanian Government agreed with this assessment when it was seeking the money. I think that its seeking of funds under this Bill is evidence of that agreement. I do not think that anyone disputes the effect of compound interest over a period, and particularly over a 60-year period. What has been said does draw attention to the fact that it is a loan and not a grant. I am advised that where viable proposals are put forward by State governments or arise from agreements with State governments, it is the usual procedure to provide a loan with interest.

It remains only for me to thank the Senate for its support on both Bills and for the assistance that will now go to Tasmania in respect of the forestry agreement and the Launceston Precision Tool Annexe. It brings to mind the efforts that have been made by Tasmania to provide programs for the employment and development of the State. I commend both Bills to the Senate.

Question resolved in the alternative.

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

page 2735

TASMANIA AGREEMENT (LAUNCESTON PRECISION TOOL ANNEXE) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 21 May on motion by Senator Carrick:

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 2735

ADJOURNMENT

Social Security Benefits: Overpayments- Television Service to Eyre Peninsula- Export of Live Horses- Public Servants: Election Candidature- Parliament House Attendants

Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I wish to raise in the adjournment debate a matter which I have raised previously and hope that this will be the last time on which I shall have to raise it. It concerns what I believe to be a case of injustice and discrimination in which a young Aboriginal father was treated with contempt by officers of the Department of Social Security. Happily it was a case in which the Department’s efforts did not succeed, but one in which I believe justice was not done. On 26 February 1980, during the adjournment debate, I raised the matter of Anthony Waters, an Aboriginal with a wife and two young children who does manual work. He is not well educated. In fact, for some considerable time when young he was raised in State institutions. Knowing what that means, I say that he has not been treated well by society from the word go.

In March 1 979, when he was receiving unemployment benefits, he failed to declare $135.20 in casual earnings. On previous occasions when working he had always declared such earnings. This time he failed to do so because, on the day on which he completed the income statement, he did not know what his earnings would be and was uncertain as to whether he should declare them at that time.

The Department became aware of these extra earnings and subtracted $135.20 from his next unemployment cheque. So, in fact within a few weeks, the money was regained by the Department. As I said on 26 February some nine months later, on 5 December 1979, he was served with a summons. Although the repayment had been made and the Waters had been assured, they thought, that the matter had been cleared up, he was served with a summons for non-declaration of this amount of earned income. I pointed out at the time that this action contrasted with the treatment of many who come through my office- and the offices of every other member and senator- and who, at times, have been overpaid thousands of dollars because of their failure, sometimes deliberately and sometimes unintentionally, to declare increases in income. I think that the maximum amount that I have seen involved has been something like $7,000. These cases are seldom prosecuted. In fact I have ne-er been involved with anyone who was prosecuted. In this case a far smaller overpayment, of $135.20, was involved. It was repaid almost immediately but it was adjudged a good reason for prosecuting a young Aboriginal father who at the time had no other means of support.

I asked at the time why the prosecution of this young family man who had the twin disabilities of being black in a country town in New South Wales and being unemployed proceeded at all. I asked why the prosecution proceeded after the Department had in fact obtained its pound of flesh by removing $135.20 from the fortnightly unemployment payment leaving the young man and his family with $57.20 to live on during the following fortnight. I asked why there was such a long delay of nine months before prosecution.

Before I brought the matter up in the adjournment debate and indeed before the man appeared in court I had sought explanations from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). After considerable difficulties and repeated inquiries I was told by the Minister- the letter arrived only just before Tony Water’s court appearance- that the Director-General of Social Services would not interfere because there were discrepancies between the story I had and the one that the Department had. When the case was adjourned I sought several times to find out the nature of the discrepancies and the reasons for the prosecution. I was told that the matter was before the courts and the Minister would not enter into any discussion on it. I happen to believe that this is a perversion of the sub judice rule. I believe that a senator trying to assist someone in such a situation should at least know the reason for the prosecution and the nature of the discrepancies.

Fortunately, because there had been interests outside Tamworth where the prosecution was occurring- that is in this Parliament- the case was again adjourned. I took up the matter again in Senate Estimates Committee C on 15 April this year. I asked why such cases occurred and about the guidelines for prosecution. Through the Minister, Mr Mahoney gave me an outline of the guidelines for prosecution in such cases. I quote from pages 75 and 76 of Senate Hansard of 1 5 April. Mr Mahoney said:

Whether or not a person shall be prosecuted or whether we will ask the Deputy Crown Solicitor to see if we have a case in law to prosecute depends on the nature of the events, whether there are any mitigating circumstances in relation to the events or whether there is some other reason why we should not prosecute, for example, if the person is very elderly and in frail health. All those considerations are taken into account in deciding whether or not to prosecute the person for an offence. The recovery of the overpayment is then secondary to the prosecution aspects.

In deciding the recovery we look at the person’s liquid financial resources and whether or not he is currently receiving a payment. If he had resources to cover the amount of the overpayment we would normally ask for a cash refund. If it was clear to us that he did not have those resources and he was receiving a current pension or benefit it would be normal to make deductions from that pension or benefit.

I ask the Senate to look at how those principles were applied in this case. This man was on unemployment benefit. He had a wife and two children. Yet, without warning, $135.20 was subtracted from his unemployment benefit cheque of $ 1 90. What examination in fact was made of his resources? Was it considered reasonable that he and his family should be left with $57 for two weeks? Do Mr Mahoney ‘s words in this case mean anything when the person involved is an Aborigine with a wife and two kids?

The discussion in the Estimates Committee on that date in fact was abruptly ended when the Minister, because the matter was before the court, refused to continue with the subject. That was where the matter rested after the Estimates Committee hearing and after I last brought this subject up. On 14 May last in the Tamworth Court of Petty Sessions, 14 months after the alleged offence occurred, the charge against Anthony Waters was dismissed and the Department of Social Security was criticised by the magistrate. I will read from a letter sent to my office by Mr Waters’ solicitor, Mr John McKenzie, who works with the Aboriginal Legal Aid Office. His letter states:

RE: ANTHONY WATERS

You will be pleased to learn that the charge brought against Anthony Waters by the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor on behalf of the Department of Social Security was dismissed in the Tamworth Court of Petty Sessions on the 14th May.

The conduct of the case and, in particular, the evidence offered by the Crown clearly demonstrated that this case should never have been brought before the Court. On behalf of Mr Waters it was admitted that he had obtained casual employment and that he had not declared it. That had never been contested. The basis of the defence which I submitted on behalf of Mr Waters was that his actions did not constitute a deliberate misrepresentation to the Department.

The unemployment benefits form had been submitted on 30 March 1979. That was the last day on which Mr Waters was engaged in casual employment. However, he was not to receive his wages for the work until the following Monday, 3 April. At the time of completing and submitting the form he was not aware of the amount of wages he would receive. Not wanting to write down a figure which may be wrong he decided to leave it be and son the matter out at a later stage. He neglected to follow the matter up, but as was shown in Court it was through an honest inadvertency rather than misrepresentation.

The Crown called a field officer of the Department of Social Security to give evidence. This was a Mr Higgins, who had interviewed Mr Waters in the first instance in relation to the matter. He gave verbal evidence of the conversation he said took place. Apart from establishing that Mr Waters had failed to declare his casual employment, Mr Higgins alleged that Mr Waters had deliberately failed to declare his income because he wanted the extra money to pay outstanding fines. It should be noted here that the Crown at no stage even attempted to produce evidence of any such fines. Yet this was the ‘ motive ‘ relied upon to establish guilt.

When asked in cross-examination whether he was satisfied that Mr Waters had a complete comprehension of what was contained in the form Mr Higgins said that he was. Yet once Mr Waters took to the witness stand it was painfully evident that he was at a loss as to what various questions and provisions in the form really meant. This was apparent both in Mr Waters answers to my questions and, even more so, in his answers to cross-examination. He is clearly a person who understands only the simplest of language, who has great difficulty in comprehending bureaucratic forms and who is very easily overwhelmed by someone in a position of authority.

The presiding magistrate came to the same conclusion: Virtually you can put any question to him and if pushed hard enough he will agree’. The Court’s finding of innocence was based on the lack of the requisite ‘ mens rea ‘ or intention to deliberately misrepresent his position . . . The magistrate, in his decision from the bench, commented on the failure of the Crown to substantiate the allegation that Mr Waters “motive’ was based on his need to pay outstanding fines. Further, the magistrate was moved to describe Mr Waters as ‘ painting a pathetic figure in the witness box ‘.

That comment, if I may interpolate, appeared in the next day’s copy of the local Tamworth newspaper. The letter continues:

So the innocence of Mr Waters was confirmed and justice was done in the courthouse. However, a number of matters arise out of the case.

I believe the questions put in the letter from Mr McKenzie should be answered and should be considered by the Minister and the Department. He writes:

Firstly, has justice really been done to Mr Waters? Surely it should not be necessary for someone like him to undergo the painful public denigration of his powers of comprehension when it should have been obvious to the officer of the Department.

Secondly, the case calls into question the attitude of the field officers and directors of the Department of Social Security. Not only does it appear that Mr Waters was pressured into making false admissions but further that the enforced repayment of the $135.20 taken all at once from Mr Water’s subsequent benefits cheque indicates a disturbing attitude amongst officers of that department. Are they entrusted with a mission of persecution of the more under-privileged and helpless members of our community? If so, from which echelons of power do such directives emanate?

Thirdly, although justice was seen to be done in the courtroom, I would submit that the price Mr Waters had to pay for such justice is unacceptable. Why were the various representations made to the Minister for Social Security to have the prosecution withdrawn rejected? The answer given by the Minister was that ‘there are certain discrepancies between the information contained in your representations and Mr Waters’ original statement.’ The only discrepancy adduced in Court was with relation to the outstanding fines. Bearing in mind the evidence presented by the Crown, or rather the lack of it, one cannot help but ask.’ What fines?’

I sincerely hope that the questions arising out of this case are pursued. I feel that it would be a tragedy to let the matter lie and allow another ‘Mr Waters’ to be ‘steam-rollered’ by the bureaucracy.

The letter was signed:

John McKenzie, Solicitor.

One can only echo Mr McKenzie’s words. This is the case of a young man who is not blessed with the advantages which make for success in our society being ground down by the bureaucratic processes and subjected to what Mr McKenzie called ‘painful public denigration’ by an unthinking and uncaring process. The departmental officers treated him like a criminal and put him and his family to dreadful anxiety in a prosecution which should never have been brought. The Department has in fact been reprimanded for this by the magistrate. But in no way did the Department make any amends for the humiliation that this young man and his wife and children suffered. If Tony Waters had not had access to people who cared for his welfare and who contacted my office, the case would certainly have gone undefended and unnoticed. I wonder how many similar cases go undefended and unnoticed.

I ask the Minister: How does the Department decide that on a first offence a father of two small children whose income it had not assessed but whose assets could well be nil deserves a sixmonth gaol sentence if he is unable to pay a $500 fine, which is the penalty for the charge that was laid against him? Have the officers who made this decision no understanding of what they would condemn a young father to for an offence of which he had almost no comprehension in the words of the magistrate and his defence attorney? He has been found not guilty but justice does not seem to me to have been done. I am not blaming the Minister; I suggest that she was wrongly advised. I know some of the reasons given to her for the prosecution. They were certainly not given in evidence in the court. One wonders in what way the information given to the Minister differed from the information given in the court.

The powerless, the black, the unemployed, the young and the ill-educated are often treated badly enough in our society without being trampled on for 14 months by a department of state in this way, particularly a department such as the Department of Social Security whose function is allegedly to help whose who are disadvantaged and in need. I ask the Minister sincerely, as I asked her on 26 February, to look at the advice she was given, to compare it with the court transcript, to make inquiries of the officers who gave her and her Director-General that advice and to take some action to try to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I desire to raise two matters tonight. I will not deal with the first matter at any great length. It cropped up in this place today when you, Mr President, reprimanded me for loudly interjecting during an answer given by Senator Chaney to a question by Senator Jessop about the proposed television service for the west coast of South Australia. I have spoken on this matter many times in the chamber and so many misleading statements have been made by Senator Jessop on the subject of television for the west coast that I could not help myself today when I heard him ask another question. I spoke on this matter at length on 23 November 1979. My speech is recorded in Hansard. I will not repeat it. I gave chapter and verse the occurrences in making applications for television on the west coast and the way the people felt that they had been misled too often. The newspaper proprietor who runs the West Coast Sentinal had also made some strong and critical remarks of the actions of Senator Jessop and the misleading statements that have been made, particularly that put out by Senator Jessop and Mr Oswald in 1977 saying that the people on the west coast would have a television service within 12 months. I refer to that statement to put the record straight. Senator Jessop and the Liberal candidate, Mr Oswald, issued a statement on 2 December 1977 about money being available for television on the west coast.

They said that the west coast had been left out in error and they had had a promise from Mr Eric Robertson that Streaky Bay would have television within 12 months. Of course, when that 12 months went by and December 1978 came around the west coast people were no closer to getting television than they had ever been.

We all know that Mr Laurie Wallis, the very diligent member for Grey, has been pursuing the matter of television on the west coast for many years. In the speech I made in the Senate on 23 November I related the questions put by Mr Wallis during a House of Representatives Estimates committee meeting and the answers that he received. I think that Mr Payne, one of the officers, said to Mr Staley, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, that in fact there was no money available for television on the west coast. Now we find that the Government is saying again, in the lead up to an election, that television will be provided on the west coast. Of course, I hope that the statements that are now being made are right. If they are the result will be mainly due to the diligence of Mr Wallis and the repeated representations he has made on behalf of his constituents. He never ceases to put forward their case. Mr Wallis, like many other people including me, has been very disappointed that the promises that have been made have not been honoured.

I will not deal with this matter any further tonight. Mr Wallis told me that there is no need for any further discussion on this matter in the Senate. He said that the people in his electorate know full well the whole history of this sad and sorry story and that they will make their judgment at the election in December of this year. No matter what Senator Jessop says or no matter what promises are made I do not think that those people will change their minds or the attitudes which they have formed over many years as a result of what has taken place.

The main matter I want to deal with tonight is the export of live horses from Australia. I first raised this matter in the Senate on 17 April, when I spoke at length during the adjournment debate. I quoted extensively from a transcript of a Nationwide program. Many people who saw the program contacted me and expressed horror at the state of the horses which were being loaded in Melbourne to be exported to Japan. Subsequently they were unloaded in Sydney and put on agistment under the care and jurisdiction of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. One question I raised that night was whether the Government was to compensate the RSPCA for all the expense it had incurred in looking after the horses. To date I have received no answer as to what compensation the Government will offer. However, I have received an answer from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) to which I will refer later.

On 2 1 April I raised this matter again. At the time Senator Scott was in the Senate representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I asked whether the Minister would either introduce legislation or table stringent regulations in the Senate so that people at large could be assured that the Government was honouring the promise made by the Minister, Mr Nixon, that this cruelty would not take place any longer, but nothing happened. On Tuesday of this week, following the tabling of the Australian Bureau of Animal Health report, I referred again to the export of live horses. I told the Senate that I had sent a telegram to Mr Nixon when I read that another shipment of horses was to leave Melbourne. I complained that the Minister had not acknowledged my earlier telegram. Yesterday I received a letter from the Minister, which I will read to the Senate. Although the letter is undated it is obvious that it must have been written on 2 1 May. The Minister wrote:

Dear Senator McLaren,

I am writing in respect of your telegram of May 8, in which you express concern at the further shipment of live horses to Japan for slaughter, and request a copy of Commonwealth Standards that have been drawn up to cover this trade.

I apologise that my reply was not forthcoming earlier, and can understand you venting your feelings on the matter in the Senate yesterday. I can assure you, however, that there was no intention on my part not to provide you with a prompt response.

The Commonwealth has indeed considerably tightened the conditions under which horses for export can be shipped. The export of live horses has been brought under the Third Schedule of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations, and in addition new Standards for the Carriage of Horses by Sea have been drawn up, and will complement requirements of the Navigation (Deck Cargo and Livestock) Regulations, and the Quarantine (Animals) Regulations.

A shipment of 32 slaughter horses for Japan was loaded on board the vessel ‘Canberra Maru’ in Melbourne on May 14 1980. These horses were considered fit to travel under the new conditions. They were selected from a total of 47 horses that were assembled, with the object of exporting 40 animals.

Throughout the days leading up to their shipment, the horses were subjected to a number of inspections by Commonwealth, State and RSPCA veterinarians, and the unsatisfactory ones were progressively culled.

I am informed that the veterinary delegation was in agreement that the horses finally loaded on May 1 4 were in a satisfactory condition for export.

There is also a veterinary officer from the Bureau of Animal Health accompanying the shipment, and he will report to me on his return.

I can assure you that the Government is most concerned to ensure the highest possible welfare standards for all live animals exported from Australia.

For your further information, I am enclosing a copy of the Standards for Carriage of Horses by Sea’, and an information paper on livestock exports.

Yours sincerely,

PETER NIXON

I am grateful for at last having received from the Minister that reply, with the accompanying documents. I seek leave of the Senate to have incorporated in Hansard the two documents which Mr Nixon forwarded to me. One of them is quite lengthy- 1 1 pages- but if I am not given leave to incorporate them I will have to take the time of the Senate to read in those documents. In my view it is a statement of standards set out by the Minister and it ought to be on the public record because those standards have not been published in the Press and the many people who have contacted me to express their concern will be most interested to read the standards set out by the Government. I seek leave to have those documents incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

PRIMARY INDUSTRY MEDIA RELEASE

May 11, 1980.

Export of Livestock for Slaughter

The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Peter Nixon, today released an information paper on the export of livestock for slaughter.

Mr Nixon said it appeared that much of the current opposition to the trade, while well-intentioned, was misinformed.

He said opposition had centred on both the animal welfare aspects and on concern that the live sheep trade was having an adverse effect on employment in the Australian meat industry.

It is hoped the information contained in this paper will help to dispel these concerns,’ Mr Nixon said.

He said opposition to the trade had intensified following the unfortunate loss of 40,000 sheep aboard the ‘Farid Fares’ in March, and the condition of 40 horses which were destined to be shipped to Japan early in April.

The Government is in complete agreement that the incident involving the horses should never have been allowed to happen, and has, as a result, taken measures to ensure there will be no repetition,’ Mr Nixon said.

The live sheep export trade has an extremely good record. Shipboard losses have averaged less than 3 per cent and sheep frequently gain weight and condition during their voyage.

The trade is an important one for Australia, providing export earnings of over$ 1 24m last year. ‘

Mr Nixon said it was true there had recently been a fall-off in employment of meatworkers in the slaughtering industry.

But this has been caused by changes in the total livestock availability and by a seasonal reduction in sheep slaughter rather than by the export of live sheep.

These characteristics of the livestock population, of slaughterings, and consequently of employment in meatworks, have long been a feature of this industry.

For example, between 1973 and 1974, the Australian sheep kill fell by 16.4 million head, entirely as a result of economic and seasonal influence. Live sheep exports at that time were negligible, and yet that fall was equivalent to more than three times the number of live sheep being exported today.’

Mr Nixon said the live sheep trade was now also encouraging and enabling the rebuilding of sheep flocks in Australia. A higher proportion of ewes was being maintained and mated, which would result in more sheep being available for slaughter in the future.

Mr Nixon said the Commonwealth believed it should continue to allow the export of livestock for slaughter, provided all reasonable steps were taken to protect animals from suffering and undue stress.

The Government is determined to ensure the highest possible standards for the welfare of all live animals that are exported, and we will continue to enforce regulations and vary them as necessary.

In light of the current public interest, it is timely to set out the details of the circumstances and conditions under which the trade is conducted. I hope this information paper will be studied and taken into consideration by all interested parties, ‘Mr Nixon said.

Information Paper on Export of Livestock for Slaughter

Recent unfortunate episodes concerning the export of live animals from Australia have sparked off considerable public comment on this trade.

One incident was the loading in Melbourne on5 April of a consignment of horses for Japan which included animals which were unfit to travel. The other was the death of 40,000 sheep on the vessel’Farid Fares’ which caught fire off South Australia on 28 March and subsequently sank.

These incidents have raised questions as to whether the export of live animals, particularly those intended for slaughter, should be allowed to continue. Others have questioned whether Government regulation of the trade provides adequate safeguards for the welfare of animals.

The Government is most concerned to ensure the highest possible standards for the welfare of all live animals that are exported. In the light of the current public interest, it is worthwhile setting out details of the circumstances and conditions under which the trade is conducted.

Controls on Livestock Exports

Exports of livestock from Australia have long been subject to regulations and administrative procedures aimed at ensuring that animals arc not subjected to cruelty or undue stress. These requirements have been kept under constant review and updated as necessary. The most recent example is the imposition of stricter controls on the export of horses.

Currently there are three sets of regulations governing the export of all livestock by sea:

The Navigation (Deck Cargo and Livestock) Regulations

The Quarantine (Animals) Regulations

The Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations

The Navigation (Deck Cargo and Livestock) Regulations are administered by the Department of Transport. They impose a very comprehensive set of requirements which must be met for a vessel to be approved, and to maintain its approval, to carry livestock.

Still more detailed requirements under the Regulations are spelled out in specifications issued by the Department to shipmasters, shipowners, livestock exporters and others concerned in the trade. The current specifications were issued in June 1978 following a review by a Livestock Advisory Committee convened by the Department. This Committee encompassed a broad range of expert opinion, and included representatives from the RSPCA.

A major thrust of the Regulations and the specifications is protection of the welfare of animals. Some of the main requirements deal with: specifications for pens and stalls, the materials to be used, standards of finish and dimensions for different classes of stock; minimum deck space per animal and specifications for non-slip flooring; quantities and standards of fodder and water to be supplied and specifications for feeding and watering facilities: provision of adequate ventilation and protection from injury from sun, weather and sea; cleaning of pens and provision for effluent drainage; stock medicines to be carried and recommended treatments for animal sickness.

The Quarantine (Animals) Regulations require animals for export to be examined by a veterinary surgeon during the period of 48 hours immediately preceding shipment. This requirement is administered by the Australian Bureau of Animal Health. State or Territory veterinary officers conduct the actual examinations and issue necessary certificates under the direction of the Bureau.

This veterinary examination is to establish that animals are healthy, free from disease, and that any specific quarantine requirements of the importing country are met. For animals which meet the requirements, a Certificate of Health and a Permit to Embark are issued. Any animals which do not meet these conditions are automatically disqualified from export.

It has long been a requirementof the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations that sheep and cattle may not be exported live from Australia unless a permit is issued by the Minister for Primary Industry, or a duly authorised officer. Among other things, the Regulations enable further conditions to be imposed upon exports, to cover health and welfare aspects, if considered necessary. To date, it has not been found necessary to do this for the export of sheep and cattle. The requirements of the other Regulations mentioned, and the good husbandry practices followed by the experienced exporters in these trades, have enabled high standards to be maintained. However, the Government continues to monitor the situation and will impose more stringent requirements if necessary.

Export of Live Horses

Horses have now been brought under the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations, and rigorous new conditions have been imposed which must be met before permits are issued to export horses.

It was not previously considered necessary to specify horses under these Regulations, because up until very recently, the international movement of horses was predominantly for breeding or sporting purposes, with very high health and transportation conditions. It was only when the comparatively small trade in horses to Japan for slaughter developed last year that questions were raised as to the adequacy of the standards for their shipment.

In December 1979, a shipment of horses to Japan was refused loading in Melbourne because the Waterside Workers’ Federation ( WWF) believed that the containers in which the horses were to travel were inhumane. The WWF called in inspectors from the Victorian RSPCA to give an opinion. This supported the WWF contention. The matter was then drawn to the attention of the Bureau of Animal Health.

The Victorian Government subsequently called a meeting in Melbourne, chaired by a representative of the Victorian administration, at which were: RSPCA, Victorian Department of Agriculture, WWF, the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA), the Australian National Line, exporters in the trade and the Bureau of Animal Health.

The discussion was wide ranging over classes of animals to be exported, their husbandry and all matters pertaining to their export.

Agreement was reached that the stalls as a method of transportation were acceptable to all parties under proper safeguards which would be worked out in association with the Animal Welfare Committee of the AVA. The WWF would accept a ruling from the RSPCA on this matter.

However, the consignment in April 1980 did not conform to the conditions which were agreed at the Melbourne meeting.

As a result, the Commonwealth Government, on 17 April 1980, brought all horse exports under the more stringent controls of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations.

In addition, the Commonwealth drew up new Standards for Carriage of Horses by Sea, which impose stringent conditions. These complement the requirements of both the Navigiation (Deck Cargo and Livestock) Regulations, and the Quarantine (Animals) Regulations.

The conditions of these Standards lay down requirements for the selection of horses which can be shipped; the positioning of them on board ship (i.e., stallions to be separated from all other horses): the necessary restraints and footholds to be provided for each horse: and, the number of spare stalls to be provided to allow easy access to each horse by a veterinary officer.

They set out requirements for preconditioning of horses at an assembly point prior to embarkation, which includes several veterinary inspections at various stages to monitor each horse ‘s acceptance of being progressively brought on to the feeding regime which will be followed on board ship.

They require a Government veterinary inspection before the horses leave the assembly point for embarkation, and a further Government veterinary inspection at shipside before loading.

Should any horse not meet all these required conditions, it will not be allowed to be exported.

A veterinarian must accompany each shipment of horses for slaughter, and each ship must be equipped with an adequate supply of pharmaceutical drugs and veterinary equipment, and adequate feeding and watering facilities, properly stored and sufficient for any possible delays at sea.

The ‘Farid Fares’ Incident

The loss at sea of this vessel and the deaths of a crew member and the 40,000 sheep on board was, ofcourse, most tragic.

It has to be realised, however, that such accidents are possible, just as they are with transport on land. Rail and road accidents, accompanied by loss of human and animal life are all too frequent.

But the live sheep export trade has an extremely good record, lt has grown progressively over the last 10 years. Since 1970-71 Australia has exported over 24m live sheep. The current annual export rate is just over 5 m, and the value of the trade in 1 978-79 was over $ 1 24m.

Losses on board ship over the last ten years have averaged less than three percent overall. Sheep on board ship also frequently gain weight and condition.

Unavoidable losses on farms in Australia also need to be considered. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has estimated that death losses of sheep and lambs on farms in Australia, excluding deaths between birth and lamb marking have been: 1973- 74-9.5 million. 1974- 75-11.2 million. 1975- 76-13.6 million. 1976- 77-14.6 million. 1977- 78-9.0 million. 1978- 79-8.9 million. (Statistics are variable owing to seasons, climatic conditions and disasters such as bushfires and floods).

By way of further comparison, in one day- 12 February 1977- as a result of bushfire in the Western District of Victoria, the actual count of livestock deaths was: 197,000 sheep and 3,365 cattle burned to death.

Live Sheep Exports and Employment of Meatworkers

Over the last year there has been a fall-off in employment of meatworkers throughout Australia. This has been caused by a 30 per cent decline in cattle slaughterings and, just recently, by a reduction in the number of sheep and lambs being slaughtered.

The decline in cattle slaughterings is the result of a rundown in the herd during the beef depression. Farmers are now retaining stock for rebuilding of beef enterprises. The fall-off in sheep slaughterings is a normal seasonal development, although, because of the dry conditions, the decline has occurred a little later this year.

Sheep numbers in Australia dropped from 1 80 million in 1970 to 131 million in 1978. The main reason for this fall was the reduction in number of ewes in the flock. Live sheep exports are almost entirely wethers. The reduction in the number of ewes was caused by the relative unprofitability of woolgrowing in the early 1970’s and poor lambings in more recent years.

Sheep numbers are now rising because of increased profitability. As the flock is maintained and rebuilt, the number of sheep available for slaughter will be maintained at around this year’s levels, which are expected to be higher than for some years.

Fluctuations of livestock numbers, of slaughterings, and consequently of employment in meatworks, have long been a feature of this industry. For example, between 1973 and 1974, the Australian sheep kill fell by 16.4 million- entirely as a result of economic and seasonal influence. Live sheep exports then were negligible, but the fall was equivalent to three times the number of live sheep being exported today.

Employment in meatworks is characteristically unstable. As a consequence, many workers in the industry are employed on daily or piecework rates under awards which provide loadings to compensate for intermittent employment.

The sheep that are exported are predominently fouryearold Merino wethers. They command a significantly higher price through this trade than they would if they were slaughtered locally. There is little demand for older mutton in Australia, or the Middle Eastern countries. Demand for mutton in our traditional major market, Japan, is currently not strong.

Middle Eastern countries accept these animals live because their meat can be sold fresh killed. It is only for this reason that they will take older wethers, as the ideal requirement for their markets is light, lean lamb. They have shown no inclination to take old mutton in frozen carcass form.

The Bureau of Agricultural Economics carried out an examination of employment implications of the live sheep export trade in 1978. It found that although job opportunities were declining, for reasons already mentioned, very few jobs were being lost in abattoirs as a result of live sheep exports.

By contrast, a significant number of other jobs was being created because of the export of live sheep. These included employment on farms, in country towns, and in ancillary services such as shearing sheep for export, providing veterinary services, handling and yarding of sheep and loading them on to overseas vessels. Provision of feed for the journey also generated jobs.

Another point of interest is that while the live sheep trade to the Middle East arose from a strong preference in those countries for fresh killed meat, the trade has also helped to develop a steadily increasing demand for frozen lamb, hogget and young mutton from Australia.

It can therefore be expected that eventually the carcass trade will replace much of the live sheep trade.

Additionally, the high level of shipments of live sheep in recent years has siphoned off a large portion of older wethers from the Australian flock. This is enabling producers to run a higher proportion of ewes, which should result in increasing Australia’s capacity to supply carcass meat in the future, and so improve job opportunities for meatworkers.

Conclusion

The Commonwealth Government supports the continuation of exports of livestock for slaughter, provided all reasonable steps are taken to protect animals from suffering and undue stress. The Government will continue to enforce regulations and vary them as necessary to ensure that these requirements are met.

It should also be noted that the great majority of exporters do not need to be coerced by regulations to provide adequate care for the animals which they consign abroad. Most have a genuine concern and realise that it is in their interest to ensure that their stock arrives at its destination in good condition.

There has recently been a fall-off in employment of meatworkers in the slaughtering industry. But this has been caused by changes in the total livestock availability and by normal slaughter patterns, rather than by the export of live sheep.

Furthermore, the live sheep trade is encouraging rebuilding of sheep flocks in Australia. A higher proportion of ewes is being retained and mated, which will result in more sheep being available for slaughter in the future.

Standards for Carriage of Horses by Sea

Introduction

The following Standards should be read in association with the Commonwealth Department of Transport, Marine Standards Division, M.S.D. Specification No. 1/1978 Requirements for the Carriage of Livestock by Sea, June 1978 or any Marine Orders based on these Standards.

The Standards are intended to more fully describe the requirements which must be met before export of horses will be authorised by the Minister for Primary Industry under the Third Schedule of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations. It must be remembered that whilst Standards can be set they do not replace professional veterinary judgement of the health or fitness of individual horses.

Standards

Horses to be Carried Athwart the Ship

In no circumstamces are horses to be carried in fore and aft stalls.

Access to Stalls

Where stalls are constructed in shipping containers these shall be fixed on deck in such a manner that access can be had from the deck to both the head and hindquarters of each individual horse.

Spare Stalls

A spare stall shall be provided in each container so that direct access can be obtained to any horse in the container. In addition there shall be a spare stall for each twenty-five horses or part thereof. These spare stalls shall be contiguous in order to provide accommodation for animals requiring special treatment.

Restraint

Each horse shall be fitted with a head collar made of leather or other suitable webbing material. Rope halters shall not be used for restraint. Two pillar reins are to be provided per horse and fixed so that the horse is restrained from biting, rearing or attempting to jump from the stall. The head restraints should be inspected at regular intervals throughout the transportation and adjusted or replaced as necessary.

Footholds

Adequate footholds shall be provided. These may be of coir, rubber or other material judged to be suitable from time to time.

Selection of Horses 6.1 Stallions may be carried only if provision is made for their separation from other horses. They should be placed in end stalls and be flanked by an empty stall. Such an empty stall shall not be one of the Spare Stalls which is required to be provided. 6.2 Mares may be carried only if they have been examined for pregnancy by a veterinary surgeon and certified to be not in foal or not more than eight months in foal. No mare likely to foal during transportation shall bc transported by sea. Pregnant mares shall not be carried in stalls. 6.3 Horses less than three years of age shall not be carried in stalls. Horses of advanced age showing signs of decrepitide shall not be carried in stalls. 6.4 Horses with fresh or long standing physical injuries shall not be carried in stalls if such injuries may cause discomfort during transport in stalls at sea.

Preconditioning and Inspections of Horses

1 Horses shall be assembled prior to shipment and identified. Horses shall not be firebranded within one month of shipment. 7.2 Horses on being assembled shall be inspected by the exporter and their feet dressed by a farrier or experienced person as necessary. The dressing should ensure that feet are not overgrown nor too severely worn at the time of loading on ship. 7.3 An inspection by a registered veterinary surgeon (veterinary inspection) shall be carried out when the horses are first assembled and the horses passed as suitable, not suitable or suitable after specified attention for export by sea, respectively. 7.4 During the period of preconditioning horses shall be brought progressively on the the feeding regime which will be followed on board ship. It may be necessary to draft horses into lots for feeding in order to ensure that all will be in strong condition prior to loading. Horses shall be observed and those showing problems during eating or disturbance of digestion shall not be exported unless they have been examined and treated and pronounced fit to travel. 7.5 A government veterinary inspection shall be made before the consignment leaves the assembly point for embarkation. At this inspection horses shall be fitted with head collars, if this has not previously been done. The inspection shall be made under conditions which will enable an individual assessment of each horse.

Transportation

Horses are to be transported to shipside with due care. Any untoward incidents during this transportation shall be recorded and reported to the certifying veterinarian.

Shipboard Inspection

1 The certifying veterinarian shall carry out an inspection of the ship to ensure that: 9.2 A veterinarian shall accompany each shipment of horses which is intended for slaughter. 9.3 An adequate supply of pharmaceutical drugs and veterinary equipment is carried to meet the needs of the kinds and numbers of horses in the consignment. The drugs and equipment shall be stored to approved Standards. 9.4 A humane killer shall be carried and secured in a safe place to which the veterinarian has access. 9.5 The feeding and watering facilities shall be adequate and feed shall be in good condition, properly stored and adequate for the voyage including possible delays at sea.

Final Veterinary Inspection

A final government veterinary inspection shall be made at shipside before loading. This inspection is to be made in good light and with ample space available. Each horse shall be individually inspected. If horses have been transported from point of assembly to the wharf in stalls, the veterinarian may choose to inspect the animals in the stalls.

1 . Certification 11.1 The Exporter shall submit to the Department of Primary Industry (DPI) an Application for Permission to Export Horses, 1 1.2 The DPI shall supply to the Exporter a copy of these Standards and shall point out the consequences of a failure to follow them. 11.3 Provided there are no objections arising from the application itself or from government policy, a Restricted Goods-Export Permit shall be filled out in respect of the horses, but not stamped or signed. The stamping and signing of this Permit represent the approval of the Minister as required by Regulation 5 of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations in relation to items in the Third Schedule of the Regulations. 1 1.4 The Exporter or owner’s agent is required to sign an Undertaking to Pay Costs of any inspection treatment or quarantine action which may become necessary in Australia or Australian territorial waters after loading. 1 1.5 The horses are then inspected at the assembly point for fitness to travel (see 7.5). At the same time the details of the Declaration and Certificate of Health (QA33) are filled out but the form is not signed. Descriptions of the horses inspected are taken on the standard form. 1 1 .6 The horses are inspected by a Government Veterinary Officer at the wharf to comply with the requirement in Reg. 96a ( I ) of the Quarantine (Animals) Regulations that they be inspected within 48 hours of shipment. At the conclusion of this inspection the Declaration and Certificate of Health will be signed by the Veterinary Officer, as will be the Certificate of Fitness. 1 1.7 Only after the certificates have been duly signed will the Restricted Goods-Export Permit be stamped and signed at the wharf by the Veterinary Officer and permission thereby be granted to export (load) the horses.

Future Development of Standards

These Standards have been drawn up on the bases of past experience and best modern practice. They are subject to future amendment after consultation. Amendments will be distributed by the Australian Bureau of Animal Health.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator McLaren, because of the length of the documents and the time of night, there may be some difficulty having this information incorporated in Hansard. It may not be possible to have it produced in tomorrow’s daily Hansard and it may have to wait until the weekly copy is produced.

Senator McLAREN:

– I want to make some brief comments on the standards which were supplied to me in the mail yesterday. I took the opportunity to consult a studmaster in the Canberra district for some comment on the standards set down by the Minister. This person provided me with some notes about which I wish to comment. The studmaster in writing to me, said:

Please find some criticisms on lines, drawn up by BAH.

That is, the Bureau of Animal Health-

They are based entirely on experience as I looked after horses single-handed on the high seas- the Atlantic Ocean and a five and a half week voyage around the Cape, 1958 (Jan) when the ship was not allowed near the coast because of African Horse Sickness.

This person went on to say that she hoped the notes would be of some use to me. On page 2 of the standards, clause 4 is headed ‘Restraint’. The studmaster states:

Stalls should be constructed in such a way as to prevent horses from jumping out rather than having the horse tethered by two pillar reins for the duration of the journey which in the case of Japan could be 1 7 days or longer.

That is the comment on clause 4, ‘ Restraint ‘. The studmaster also said:

It is also of vital importance that the webbing used-

That is referred to in the standards-

Should be of a type that should not shrink if soaked by sea water or spray.

That is what often occurs when horses are transported as deck cargo. Under the heading Footholds’, I am advised as follows:

Horses tethered by the method mentioned are in danger of breaking their neck if back legs slip forward and horse goes down on its hind quarters.

That would happen if the horses were tethered by the head to the two pillar straps. That danger, I am informed, is very great. The studmaster continued:

A horse’s natural instinct when the seas become very rough is to sit down, resting on their nose and tail for balance, to ride out the rough sea. If they are unable to do this they are liable to panic and cause themselves serious internal injury such as twisted bowels.

On page 3 of the standards document provided to me by the Minister, under the heading ‘Preconditioning and Inspections of Horses’ it is stated:

Horses shall be assembled prior to shipment and identified. Horses shall not be firebranded within one month of shipment.

I am hoping that I can get a response from the Minister during the recess concerning the following questions which the studmaster would like to ask: How are existing firebrands identified in case the horse was obtained illegally? How are breeds and types protected from leaving the country if they are of breeding age? For two years or more Timor ponies, which are almost extinct, Welsh mountain ponies, Shetland ponies, thoroughbreds, standardbreds, jumpers and excellent types of Clydesdales, as well as extremely quite chidrens ponies, were included in export consignments. This is of great concern to many horse lovers in Australia. They are very concerned that this practice might still be carried out. The studmaster continued:

Apart from the vets equine experts should be present, if this trade must continue.

Horses are not ‘slaughter animals’ in the sense as other livestock. Through the wars they have carried men and become comrades.

None of us, I think, will ever forget the Australian Light Horse Brigade and that magnificent film Forty Thousand Horsemen which was built around the Australian Light Horse. The studmaster went on to say that horses, as well as carrying soldiers in time of war, have also been very prominent in sport, winning gold, silver and bronze Olympic medals for this country. She stated:

Horses played a major role in the early development of Australia and like dogs were known as man’s best friend.

The least that can be done is to make the Japanese accept that a bullet in the head by an expert should be the only killing method, and they should not be upset through scents of blood and fear beforehand.

Those are some of the concerns that have been expressed to me. With respect to page 5 of the standards document and the heading ‘Certification’ in clause 11, this question is posed by the studmaster

How can it be verified that horses claimed as being sent for sport or breeding to other countries are not, in fact, going to be eaten?

That is, whether they are to be slaughtered and eaten by gourmets in Japan. The studmaster continued:

The source should be directed very carefully as well as the quality and standard of horses.

That is all I need to say. I have put onto the record the concern of a very experienced studmaster in the Canberra area. No doubt I will receive many more representations from people once all the newspapers are back on the news stands and people realise that their concern has been expressed in the Parliament.

Every day we still get letters protesting against the export of live horses. I hope that, as a result of the concern of the studmaster which I have expressed here tonight, the Government will take some cognisance of the recommendations that have been made so that, if the live horse trade is to continue, it will continue under the most humane conditions possible. I hope that we can cease the live horse trade altogether. Our primary producers would be much better served if we could convince the Japanese to buy more beef, pork and sheep from this country rather than taking an animal which is much revered by many Australians; that is the good Australian horse.

Friday, 23 May

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– I wish to make some comments in relation to the parliamentary candidature of public servants. I have raised this matter in the Senate on a number of occasions. For example, on 29 May 1978, I outlined the legislative provisions in relation to public servants wishing to stand for public office. I did this for State and Federal public servants and especially in relation to section 44 of the Constitution. On 15 November 1978 I introduced a private members Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Holders of Offices of Profit) Bill 1978, and I delivered a second reading speech on the Bill on 24 November 1978. Earlier this year, on 28 February, I spoke to a General Business motion moved by Senator Mason which dealt with the problems faced by Commonwealth public servants who seek election to the Federal Parliament.

Late last month I received a letter from the Minister assisting the Prime Minister, Mr MacKellar, outlining a Public Service submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. The submission dealt with the parliamentary candidature of public servants. Views which I have expressed previously in this place were extensively quoted in that submission. I believe that Senator Mason received a letter from Mr MacKellar on the same day. This was probably due to his raising the General Business item to which I referred earlier.

Unfortunately, Senator Mason issued a Press statement claiming all the credit for the reforms foreshadowed in the submission to the Senate Standing Committee and implied in that Press statement that no one else had raised this matter in the Senate. I would like to quote the Press statement that Senator Mason issued. It is stated in the Commonwealth Record issue of 29 April to 4 May 1980 under the heading ‘Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats ‘:

Public servants’ rights to contest elections 1 May 1980- The Federal Government will draft legislation to ensure public servants who resign to contest elections will get their jobs back. The Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Colin Mason, said that he was delighted by the Government ‘s decision. He said: lt represents a major breakthrough on civil rights. The Australian Democrats believe that the situation where public servants had to resign so as to contest elections is contrary to a basic tenet of democracy, the freedom of the individual to offer himself to service in the Australian Parliament. In the present circumstances reinstatement is at the discretion of the Public Service Board. Now it will be automatic.

I moved in the Senate provisions forcing public servants to resign be re-examined: and the Senate decided to have the matter further examined by its Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs.

The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, Mr MacKellar, today informed me that the Government has decided to amend the Commonwealth Public Service Act and the Public Service General Orders. Previously, public servants were forced to resign to contest elections and hope that, if they were unsuccessful, they would normally be reappointed; but they had no absolute guarantee of this. Now that will be provided.

Senator Mason said that he still believed that section 44 (iv) of the Constitution should not be used to force a public servant to resign. He said: ‘However, the Government’s decision to accept my proposals certainly removes most of the problems ‘.

Mr President, I feel so strongly about the issues in the private members Bill which I introduced in this place that I am delighted when I receive support for my views from other honourable senators. I do consider, however, that Senator Mason is drawing a long bow in taking sole credit for the Government’s announcement that it will introduce some amending legislation into the Parliament. In support of that assertion of mine, I shall quote from paragraph 34 of the submission from the Public Service Board to which I have referred. Paragraph 34 states:

With regard to Commonwealth Public Service Act staff, amendments which are proposed to the Act and the Public Service Board’s General Orders appear to meet Senator Colston’s basic objections to the present situation. These amendments include: replacing reinstatement of unsuccessful candidates in the Public Service by a clear entitlement to reinstatement amending Public Service General Orders to indicate the legislative position in respect of Commonwealth laws, and to advise public servants to ascertain the provisions of any relevant state laws.

I refer to that paragraph to indicate that those proposed amendments relate to my objections to the present situation. I turn to Senator Mason’s statement. I am deeply disappointed that, given Senator Mason’s professional background, he engaged in deliberate plagiarism in writing his Press statement. In support of that statement I shall refer to a couple of extracts from Hansard. My first quote comes from Hansard of 29 May 1 978, in which I am reported as having said:

Today I intend to discuss a topic which should be of concern to all members of the Federal Parliament. The matter that I shall debate is one of the basic tenets of Australian democracy, namely, the freedom of the individual to offer himself for public service in the Parliament.

Again on 24 November in my second reading speech on my private member’s Bill I used similar words although I put them in a slightly different context. I said:

A public servant, however, is required to resign his position before contesting a federal election. Thus one of the basic tenets of Australian democracy, namely the freedom of the individual to offer himself for public service in the Parliament is severely limited for public servants.

I now quote again from part of Senator Mason’s statement which I read earlier. He said:

The Australian Democrats believe that the situation where public servants had to resign so as to contest elections is contrary to a basic tenet of democracy, the freedom of the individual to offer himself to service in the Australian Parliament.

Before I mentioned that perhaps I should have pointed out that on 28 February Senator Mason acknowledge that I used those words. In his speech on that date he said:

I will review briefly recent history of this matter in the Parliament. On 29 May 1978, Senator Colston raised it in the first reading of Appropriation Bill ( No. 3 ). He said:

The matter 1 shall debate is one of the basic tenets of Australian democracy, namely, the freedom of the individual to offer himself for public service in the Australian Parliament. ‘

Those who have been listening to my comments and those who will read the comments later in Hansard will realise that the words I used on a couple of occasions and the words that Senator Mason quoted me as using on one occasion when he spoke in the Parliament were, in fact, used directly in the statement that he issued on 1 May. I do not mind my words being used. I suppose it is a form of flattery. But one would think that Senator Mason would identify his source.

Finally, I mention that I am pleased that some small progress has been made in alleviating the problems faced by public servants who wish to seek election to Federal Parliament. But I stress that the proposed legislation that was announced in the submission to which I referred will do nothing for State public servants who seek election to the Commonwealth Public Service. This is acknowledged in paragraph 35 of the Public Service Board’s submission, which states:

These amendments do not, of course, alter the position with regard to State public servants who nominate for Commonwealth seats: the legal advice mentioned at paragraph 6 above indicates that they are probably required by the Commonwealth Constitution to resign at or before nomination, and, Senator Colston notes that State legislation does not generally provide for mandatory re-appointment in such circumstances.

I firmly believe that amendment of section 44 of the Constitution is the most appropriate way to protect the democratic rights of public servants, both State and Federal, who wish to offer themselves as candidates for the Federal Parliament.

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

– Three honourable senators have made contributions to the debate tonight, and I have listened closely to those contributions. Senator Grimes spoke of certain circumstances that occurred to a young Aboriginal named Anthony Waters. I will ensure that the responsible Minister’s attention is directed to those comments in the Hansard. Senator McLaren made two references, the first one being to the extension of television to the west coast of South Australia. I am not competent to report upon the progress there. I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley). Secondly, Senator McLaren spoke about the conditions of the export of live horses and asked a number of questions about the identification of fire brands and certification. Obviously I do not have that information, and I will ask the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) to study the matter and respond. As to Senator Colston, I cannot adjudicate on the actions of Senator Mason. I am aware of Senator Colston’s interest in the rights of public servants in terms of parliamentary candidature. To the extent that the matter requires parliamentary activity or study, I will bring it to the attention of the Minister concerned.

Senator COLSTON (Queensland)-by leave- I became so carried away that I neglected to mention another minor matter. Mr President, I think you are aware of the matter I wish to raise.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, you mentioned it earlier.

Senator COLSTON:

-Mr President, earlier this evening I tried to put two questions on the Notice Paper. I was told that I could not do so because they were directed to you. I should put them into the record tonight so that you can examine them during the recess. I seek leave to have the questions incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The questions read as follows-

Parliament House Attendants

In relation to the radiation film badges being continuously worn by attendants at the front entrance to Parliament House, what have been the results of tests carried out on those film badges?

Parliament House Attendants

Were attendants at the front entrance to Parliament House where X-ray equipment is being used directed to work at that location or were they volunteers?

The PRESIDENT:

– I assure Senator Colston that I shall go into the matters he has raised and obtain replies for him.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 12.23 a.m.

page 2747

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Aviation: Fuel Tax and Loan Guarantees (Question No. 2020)

Senator Elstob:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

  1. How much tax per litre was collected in 1978-79 on: (a) jet fuel; and (b) avgas.
  2. How much tax is it estimated will be collected for 1979-80 on each commodity.
  3. How much of the tax collected during 1978-79 was returned as concessions to: (a) the major airlines using jet fuel; and (b) light aircraft operators, on commercial flights, using avgas.
  4. How many loan guarantees, and how much other financial assistance, has the Federal Government given to: (a) the major airlines; and (b) small commercial aircraft operators, in each year since 1974 for the purchase of new aircraft, and what amount is involved in respect of each individual company.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) There is only one tax levied by the Commonwealth Government specifically on refined aviation fuel- an excise duty (and commensurate customs duty on imported refined products) levied at the following rates.

Aviation turbine fuel- 4. 1 9 cents per litre

Aviation gas- 4.555 cents per litre.

These rates have applied since 16 August 1977. Prior to that date the rates were 3.19 cents and 4.305 cents per litre respectively.

  1. Estimated receipts for these specific items are not included in the Budget papers. They account for only a small proportion of excise and customs duty receipts on petroleum products.
  2. Apart from minor credits resulting from overpayment or other similar causes, none of the duty collected from the major airlines or light aircraft operators is returned to them.

The honourable senator may have in mind, however, the arrangements under Section 130 of the Customs Act and section 160a of the Excise Act by which, under intergovernmental agreements, aircraft engaged on international air service or flights receive fuel free of duty provided they fly in accordance with the specified routes contained in such agreements. Such agreements may involve the overflight of Australian territory. Any fuel consumed within Australia on routes other than those agreed to attracts duty at the normal rates. The value of these concessions, in terms of revenue forgone, is not readily available, lt should be noted that Australian airlines operating on international flights receive the same concessional treatment from other countries with whom inter-governmental agreements have been made.

  1. (a) The Commonwealth has provided guarantees on four overseas borrowings by Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd and on three overseas borrowings by Qantas Airways Limited since 1974 to assist in financing the purchase of aircraft. Details are set out in Table 1 .

Each guarantee given by the Treasurer on behalf of the Commonwealth was authorised by specific legislation (i.e. Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Acts and Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Acts).

The Commonwealth has also undertaken borrowings on overseas capital markets, the proceeds of which were on-lent to Qantas Airways Limited and Australian National Airlines Commission to finance the purchase of aircraft. The onlending of these borrowings was also authorised by specific legislation (i.e. Loans (Qantas Airways Limited) Acts and Loans (Airline Equipment) Acts). Details of these borrowings are provided in Table 2.

  1. No financial assistance, in the form of guarantees or otherwise, has been given by the Commonwealth to small commercial aircraft operators for the purchase of new aircraft.

Fuel Tax Paid by Airlines (Question No. 2344)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

What rate of fuel tax is paid in Australia by: (a) Ansett Airlines of Australia; (b) Trans-Australia Airlines; and (c) Qantas Airways Ltd.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Commonwealth Government levies excise duty on refined aviation fuel at the following rates:

Aviation turbine fuel: 4. 1 9c per litre.

Aviation gas: 4.555c per litre.

Customs duty is levied at commensurate rates on imported refined aviation fuel.

For further information on estimated effects of the crude oil levy on aviation fuel prices and conditions of payment of excise and customs duty by airlines, I refer the honourable senator to my answer to Senate Question No. 2020 in today’s Hansard.

Public Buildings: Access for the Handicapped (Question No. 2586)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) What steps has the Government taken towards providing access for the handicapped to public buildings, including Commonwealth offices located in buildings not owned by the Commonwealth.
  2. Is the Minister aware of the Swedish Government’s provision of ‘home alteration subsidies’ of up to $A3,000 to provide improved access and protection for the handicapped through wider doors, hand rails and protection against sharp corners; if so, will the Minister consider the introduction of such a scheme here.
  3. Has the Government taken any steps towards providing a uniform national code of access for the handicapped.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Commonwealth government has a policy of ensuring that public buildings constructed by or for it are designed to provide suitable facilities and easy access for disabled people. The implementation of this policy is the responsibility of my colleagues, the Minister for Administrative Services and the Minister for Housing and Construction.

Wherever feasible and as opportunity permits the Departments of Administrative Services and Housing and Construction work towards upgrading access to existing government-owned buildings in accordance with the Australian Standard Design Code 1428-1979 design rules for access by the disabled.

The Department of Housing and Construction is proposing, as part of its comprehensive program of activities for International Year of Disabled Persons (IYDP) 1981, to undertake a survey of Commonwealth buildings throughout Australia to assess the modifications and funding necessary to provide access for disabled persons.

In some cases it is not physically possible to convert a building. For new government buildings the code is taken into consideration at the design stage.

With respect to leased buildings compliance with the design code is the responsibility of building owners. While some leased premises are upgraded to provide suitable access for disabled people, this is not always possible because owners may not be agreeable to alterations or it may not be physically possible to convert a building.

The Commonwealth is also attempting to encourage State and local governments to adopt suitable design standards so that handicapped people may have ready access to normal community living.

  1. I am aware of the Swedish Government’s provision of subsidies of up to SKr 15,000 (approximately $A3,000) for home alterations.

As part of the rehabilitation program provided by my Department provision already exists for this type of service.

The Commonwealth government, through the operations of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service (CRS) provides modifications to or installs aids at the home or workplace of persons undergoing a suitable rehabilitation program, to enable them to achieve maximum mobility and independence in daily living.

To enable the CRS to assist all those disabled persons now eligible for its services the Government is progressively upgrading and supplementing the resources of the Service and examining new ways of delivering rehabilitation programs to disabled people within their local environment.

  1. The adoption of Australian Standard Design Code 1428-1979 is providing to be of assistance in the achievement of a national code of access for handicapped people.

This standard is the result of a two year study by the Access Committee of the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled (ACROD) in conjunction with the Standards Association of Australia. The Commonwealth Government supported this project with a grant of $20,000. The standard is a revision and extension of ‘Australian Standard CA 52, Design for Access by Handicapped Persons Part 1-1968, Public Buildings and Facilities’. The new standard gives more details on access to public buildings, hotels and motels, restaurants, and residential, recreational, educational health and welfare facilities.

International Development Association Funds and Asian Development Bank Special Fund (Question No. 2587)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 March:

  1. 1 ) In which years have there been replenishments of the International Development Association funds.
  2. Which developed and developing countries have contributed to replenishments and what has been the amount of the contribution in each case.
  3. In which years have there been replenishments of the Asian Development Bank Special Fund.
  4. Which developed and developing countries have contributed to replenishments and what has been the amount of the contribution in each case.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1964, 1968, 1971, 1974, 1977 and 1980.
  2. The following table provides the information sought:
  1. 1976 and 1978.
  2. The following table provides the information sought: ($USm)

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme: Earnings of Spouse (Question No. 2589)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) What is the upper limit which may be earned by a spouse of a woman if the woman is to remain eligible to receive: (a) full Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) allowance; and ( b) pan TEAS allowance.
  1. What level of Social Security benefit may be received by a spouse of a woman if the woman is to remain eligible to receive: (a) full TEAS allowance; and (b) part TEAS allowance.
  2. If there is a difference between the amount which may be earned, and the amount of benefit which may bc received; what is the rationale for that difference.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The maximum TEAS allowance in 1980 is $2,348 p.a. This is payable in the case of a married person where the income of the spouse did not exceed $9,400 in the 1978-79 financial year. The corresponding spouse income level for receipt of the minimum allowance ($300 p.a.) is $13,497.
  2. and (3) No distinction is made between the sources of income which may be received by an applicant’s spouse in determining that applicant’s entitlement to living allowance under TEAS. The income may be received from a Social Security pension, or employment, or from other sources.

Cost to Industry of Revenue Duty (Question No. 2630)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 27 March 1 980:

  1. 1 ) What is the estimated annual cost to industry of the 2 per cent Revenue Duty introduced on 1 July 1979.
  2. Have business and industry spokesmen expressed concern at these costs.
  3. Will the Government consider removing the duty, so as to reduce inflation and increase the competitiveness of Australian industry.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) lt is not possible to calculate with any degree of accuracy the cost to industry of the 2 per cent revenue duty. The revenue arising from the measure is estimated to be approximately S75m in the 1979-80 budget year.
  2. Yes.
  3. 3 ) Revenue matters are considered each year in the context of planning the annual Budget.

Registered Travel Agents (Question No. 2641)

Senator Keeffe:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did the Bank Settlement Plan Steering Panel release figures, in the first week in February 1980, which indicate that 653 International Air Transport Association (IATA) agency locations earned a total of 380,000,000 in commission on gross sales of $951,000,000 in 1979, as reported in Travel Week dated 1 1-24 February 1980 (page 20), if so, are these figures correct?
  2. How many registered travel agents operate in Australia.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Yes, the Bank Settlement Plan Steering Panel did release the figures referred to above. While I cannot vouch for the accuracy of these figures, I have no reason to doubt that they are not correct.
  2. New South Wales is the only State that requires travel agents to be registered. There were 610 registered travel agents in New South Wales as at 30 June 1979.

Sealed Refrigeration Units: Extended Warranty Cover (Question No. 2642)

Senator Elstob:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 5 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Does a 12-month full warranty (covering labour and parts) with a further 4-year extended warranty (covering parts only) at present apply in respect to sealed refrigerator units.
  2. Have any representations been made to the Government with the purpose of abolishing the extended warranty cover; if so, have any such representations been made by EMAIL, Rank Arena- G EC; if not, by whom have such representations been made.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. I ) Although the warranties referred to by the honourable senator may currently be offered by manufacturers or suppliers, as an inducement to consumers to acquire their products, warranties for specific periods are not imposed by Commonwealth legislation.

Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 a number of obligations are imposed upon manufacturers and suppliers with respect to goods acquired by consumers, including the obligation that goods will be of merchantable quality. This obligation requires that goods be as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought as it is reasonable to expect. In determining this, regard is to be had to any description applied to the goods, their price (if relevant) and all other relevant circumstances. Accordingly, whether particular goods are of merchantable quality will vary from transaction to transaction.

The Act also gives to consumers acquiring goods a right of action against a manufacturer where the manufacturer fails reasonably to ensure that required repair facilities or spare parts are made available to consumers. A manufacturer may exclude this liability, either in whole or in part, if he informs consumers to that effect before they acquire the goods.

The questions of whether, and for what duration, it is reasonable for a manufacturer to hold spare parts or provide repair facilities will vary from product to product.

  1. I am not aware of any representations to the Government on this matter.

Rundle Shale Oil Project (Question No. 2652)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did the Prime Minister say on 28 February 1980, in relation to the Rundle shale oil shale project, that: ‘The viability of the project is underpinned by the Commonwealth ‘s policy on the import parity pricing for crude oil. Without this assurance to the developers of an economic market for their product, it would not be possible to justify the enormous investment which will be involved ‘.
  2. Does that statement still apply; if so, docs it mean that regular increases will be needed in the price of indigenous crude to keep pace with the inflationary impact on the exploration and development costs of the Rundle shale oil project.
  3. Has the Bureau of Mineral Resources or any other section of the Department of National Development and Energy made an independent assessment of the proposed Rundle shale oil project; if so, what are the results of that assessment.
  4. Have the Rundle shale oil partners provided to the Government any information about the extent of the reserves, the costs of extracting and processing those reserves and the projected prices of indigenous crude which will bc required to justify large scale production.
  5. Has the Government been asked to provide any technical information to the Rundle shale oil partners about government oil pricing policies or likely excise and levies which might apply to the output of the Rundle shale oil project; if so, what information has been requested and what information has been provided.
  6. Has the Australian Government asked for or received the assessments of the Rundle deposit from the Queensland Department of Mines; if so, what are the conclusions reached by the Queensland Department of Mines about the economics of the project.
  7. 7 ) Is it correct that Exxon of the United States through its Australian subsidiary, Esso Australia Ltd, has agreed to participate in a feasibility study of the Rundle shale oil deposit to establish if commercial production is possible; if so, what are the arrangements under which Esso has agreed to participate and did they require the approval of the Foreign Investment Review Board.
  8. If the joint venture partners and Esso agree to proceed beyond the feasibility stage will the arrangement require the approval of the Foreign Investment Review Board.
  9. What is the total amount which is proposed to be invested in the Rundle shale oil proposal feasibility study by Esso Australia Ltd.
  10. Is there to be any direct or indirect Australian Government financial contribution; if so, what is the amount of the contribution.
  11. Prior to the commencement of the mining and processing of the shale will the Government require a detailed environmental impact statement to be prepared either by the Rundle shale oil project partners or an independent body.
  12. Are any shale oil production plants in operation in overseas countries.
  13. Has the Department of National Development and Energy studied the operations of these plants and the financial operating results; if so, are they available for publication.
  14. Did the Minister in his recent visit to the United States have discussions with representatives of Exxon about the Rundle shale oil project; if so, did the company give any indication about what it thought might be the total capital required to bring the shale oil project to commercial production and the time that might happen after the completion of the feasibility study.
  15. 15) If the company did provide such information is it the Government’s intention to make a statement to the Parliament; if so, when.
  16. Did the Prime Minister in his statement of 28 February 1980 say that: ‘the project would not have been able to proceed without the Commonwealth’s import parity pricing policy’; if so, was the Prime Minister referring to the actual mining and commercial production from the Rundle deposit, and if he is referring to the actual commercial production from the project on what basis does he make the statement if the feasibility study has not yet been completed.
  17. 17) On what facts are the employment estimates stated by the Prime Minister of 500 persons for employment at the pilot plant and 2000 in the construction of the plant based.
  18. Has the Department of National Development and Energy confirmed those figures; if so, on what data are its assessments based.
  19. 1 9 ) Is it correct that the present share market valuation of the shares in the two Rundle partners values the oil reserves claimed to be available at 20c-30c a barrel while the present import price is about $24 a barrel; if so, allowing for exploration and development costs, why are the reserves so heavily discounted in view of the optimistic statements by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. ) See my reply to a question without notice from Senator Sibraa on 2 April 1980 (Hansard, page 1329).
  3. No.
  4. Information provided included details of reserves and estimated operating and capital costs of extracting and processing those reserves to shale oil; these estimated costs are being reviewed by Esso and will be refined during the pre-engineering stage. Projected prices of indigenous crude which will be required to justify large scale production have not been provided.
  5. 5 ) The partners sought information on the application of the liability of shale oil to the crude oil excise levy. The Government advised the companies that the levy law as enacted does not extend to shale oil.
  6. No.
  7. and (8) See separate statements by the Rundle partners and the Prime Minister of 28 February 1 980.
  8. Not known.
  9. No.
  10. The Minister for Science and the Environment has directed the preparation and submission by the partners of an environmental impact statement under the terms of the Environment Protection Administrative Procedures, in relation to the Rundle Proposal.
  11. China and the USSR are understood to have established shale oil production plants. No commercial scale production plants have been established in the Western World but a number of projects designed to establish their technical and economic viability including the establishment of pilot plants arc being considered notably in the United States and Brazil.
  12. No.
  13. and (15) My discussions with representatives of Exxon were on a confidential basis. However, I cun say that the discussions concentrated on the international oil supply and demand outlook; discussions on the Rundle project were in general terms only.
  14. See the next sentence in the Prime Minister’s statement.
  15. Estimates received from the Rundle partners derived by the partners’ technical consultants Rankine and Hill Pty Ltd using engineering studies provided by specialist consulting engineers.
  16. No.
  17. The statements by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister were made in the knowledge that the Rundle partners and Esso planned an immediate start on a major research and engineering program and that following this work present plans envisage the construction of a pilot plant, expected to take at least three years to construct at a cost of several hundred million dollars to prove the technical and economic viability of producing oil from Rundle oil shale.

Petroleum Products Freight Subsidy Scheme: Media Advertising (Question No. 2660)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 5 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) What was the total cost of media advertising of the announcement of the 1 April 1980 extension of the Petroleum Products Freight Subsidy Scheme.
  2. In what newspapers was the advertisement placed.
  3. What was the purpose of the advertisements.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) It is not possible to give the precise cost of the media advertising at this time, as all accounts have not been received. The estimated cost of the advertising is $2 1 ,000.
  2. See attached list.
  3. The purpose of the advertisements was to publicise the extension of the Petroleum Products Freight Subsidy Scheme, which came into effect on 1 April 1980.

PETROLEUM PRODUCTS FREIGHT SUBSIDY SCHEME

NEWSPAPERS WHICH CARRIED ADVERTISEMENT

LIST ‘A’-NEW SOUTH WALES

Albury Border Mail, Albury Twin Cities Post, Armidale Express, Armidale New Englander, Barham Bridge, Barraba Gazette, Batemans Bay Advocate, Bathurst Western Advocate, Bega District News, Bega and District Times, Belligen Courier Sun, Bingara Advocate, Blayney Lyndhurst Shire Chronicle, Bombala Times, Boorowa News, Bourke Western Herald, Bowral Southern Highlands News, Braidwood Tallanganda Times, Broken Hill Barrier Truth, Byron News, Canowindra News, Casino Express-Examiner, Cobar Age, Coffs Harbour Advocate, Coffs Harbour Eastland Opinion, Condobolin Lachlander, Cooma Monaro Express, Coonabarabran Times, Coonamble Times, Cootamundra Herald. Corowa Free Press, Cowra Guardian, Crookwell Gazett, Deniliquin Times, Dorrigo Gazette, Dubbo Daily Liberal, Dungog Chronicle, Eden Imlay Magnet, Finley S.R. News. Forbes Advocate, Forster Advocate, Gilgandra Weekly, Glen Innes Examiner, Gloucester Advocate, Gosford Express, Gosford Star, Goulburn Evening Post, Grafton Daily Examiner, Grenfell Record, Griffith Area News, Gundagai Independent, Gunnedah Independent, Guyra Guardian, Harden Express, Hay Riverine Grazier, Henty Observer, Hillston Spectator, Inverell Times, Junee Southern Cross, Kempsey Macleay Argus, Kempsey Mid Coast Observer, Lake Cargelligo News, Leeton Irrigator, Lismore Northern Star, Lithgow Mercury, Macksville Nambucca Guardian News, Manilla Express, Milton Ulladulla Express, Milton Ulladulla Times, Moama Free Press, Molong Express, Moree Champion, Moruya Examiner, Moruya Southern Star, Moss Vale Post, Mudgee Guardian, Mullumbimby Advocate, Murwillumbah Daily News, Muswellbrook Chronicle, Muswellbrook Hunter Valley News, Narrabri Courier, Narrandera Argus, Narromine News, Nowra News Leader. Nowra Shoalhaven News, Nowra South Coast Register, Nyngan Western Mail, Orana Shopper, Orange Central Western Daily, Parkes Champion Post, Peak Hill Times, Penrith Press, Penrith St Marys Star, Picton Post, Port Macquarie Holiday City Express, Port Macquarie News, Queanbeyan Age, Quirindi Advocate, Richmond Macquarie Towns Review, Scone Advocate, Singleton Argus, Springwood Mountains Gazette, Tamworth Northern Daily Leader, Taree Manning River Times, Temora Independent, Tenterfield Star, The Entrance Guardian, Trundle Star, Tumbarumba Times, Tumut Times, Uralla Times, Wagga Daily Advertiser, Wagga News Pictorial, Wagga Riverina Leader, Walcha News, Walgett Spectator, Warialda Standard, Warren Advocate, Wauchope Gazette, Wellington Times, Westlakes Advertiser, West Wyalong Advocate, Windsor Courier, Windsor Gazette, Wingham Chronicle, Wyong Toukley Advocate, Yass Post, Yass Tribune, Young South West News Pictorial, Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Telegraph, Sydney Sun, Daily Mirror, The Land.

LIST ‘B’-VICTORIA

Ballarat Courier, Bendigo Advertiser, Mildura Sunraysia Daily, Shepparton News, Warrnambool Standard, Ararat Advertiser, Bairnsdale Advertiser, Ballarat News, Benalla Ensign, Golden City Gazette, Castlemaine Mail, Cobram Courier, Colac Herald, Cranbourne Sun, Echuca Herald, Euroa Gazette, Foster Mirror, Gisborne and Macedon Telegraph, Hamilton Spectator, Hastings Sun, Horsham Mail Times, Kerang Northern Times, South Gippsland SentTimes, Kyambram Free Press, Kyneton Guardian, Kyneton Telegraph, Leongatha Star, Maryborough Advertiser, Mornington Post, Mooroopna Midland Times, Numurkay Leader, Orbost Mail, Pakenham Gazette, Rosebud Gazette, Sale Gippsland Times, Seymour Telegraph, Stawell Times

News, Sunbury News, Sunbury Sun. Swan Hill Guardian. Traralgon Journal, Wangaratta Chronical Despatch. Werribee Banner, Westernport News, Whittlesea Post. Wodonga Albury Express, Yarram Standard News. Alexandra Standard, Boort Standard, Bright Observer. Camperdown Chronicle, Charlton Tribune, Cobden Times. Cohuna Farmers Weekly. Corryong Courier, Creswick Advertiser, Daylesford Advocate, Donald B. Times, Hopetoun Courier, Kaniva Times, Casterton News Advert., Maffra Spectator. Mansfield Courier, Melton Express. Mirboo North Times, Myrtleford Times, Nhill Free Press. Ouyen Express, Robinvale Sentinel, Rochester C.V. News. Sea Lake Times Ensign. Terang Express. Warracknabeal Herald, Wedderburn Express, Woodend Telegraph. Yarrawonga Chronicle, Yea Chronicle, Potato Growers News. Beaufort Advocate, Beechworth Advertiser, Dimboola Banner, Edenhope Kowree Advocate, Heathcote Times, Jeparit Leader, Kooweerup Sun, Mortlake Despatch, Port Fairy Gazette, Rainbow News, Skipton W.P. Advertiser, Trafalgar News, Melbourne Age, Sun News Pictorial. Melbourne Herald, Stock and Land, Weekly Times.

LIST ‘C- QUEENSLAND

Bundaberg News Mail, Ipswich Queensland Times, Mt Isa North West Star, Rockhampton Morning Bulletin, Southport Gold Coast Bulletin. Toowoomba Chronicle. Warwick Daily News, Ayr Advocate, Gympie Times. Ingham Herbert River Express, Dalby Herald, Innisfail Advocate, Nambour Chronicle, Beaudesert Logan and Albert Times, Bowen Independent, Biloela Central Telegraph. Caboolture Near North Coast News, Chinchilla News, Cleveland Redland Times, Emerald Central Q’ld News, Kingaroy South Burnett Times, Redcliffe Herald. Wynnum Herald. Charters Towers Northern Miner, Roma Leader. Roma Western Star. Stanthorpe Border Post, Goondiwindi Argus, Longreach Leader, Home Hill Observer, Herberton Atherton Times. Monto Herald, Proserpine Guardian, Bundaberg The Drum. Pialba Bay Leader, Pialba Hervey Bay Observer, Herberton Focus Tablelander, Mareeba Tablelands Advertiser. Maroochydore Advertiser, Maroochydore Noosa News. Boonah Fassifern Guardian, Charlesville Western Times. Clermont Telegram. Mundubbera Central Burnett Times, St George Balonne Beacon, Tully Times, Pittsworth Sentinel, Allora Advertiser, Blackall Barcoo Independent, Childers Isis Recorder, Clifton Courier, Cunnamulla Watchman. Boonah Brisbane Valley Sun, Courier Mail, Brisbane Telegraph, Queensland Country Life.

LIST ‘D’-SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Balaklava Producer, Bordertown Chronicle, Clare Northern Argus, Cleve E.P. Tribune, Eudunda Courier, Jamestown Review Times, Kadina Y.P.C. Times, Kingscote Islander, Kingston Leader, Loxton News, Millicent S.E. Times, Mt Gambier Border Watch. Murray Bridge Standard, Naracoorte Herald, Penola Pennant, Pinnaroo Border Times, Pt Augusta Transcontinental, Renmark Murray Pioneer, Strathalbyn Southern Argus, Ceduna W.C. Sentinel, Waikerie River News, Whyalla News, Whyalla S.G. Pictorial, Adelaide Advertiser, Adelaide News. S.A. Stock Journal.

LIST’ E’- WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Kalgoorlie Miner, Busselton Margaret Times. Coastal Districts Times, Warren Blackwood Times, Great Southern Herald, Wagin Argus, Narrogin Observer, Gnowangerup Star, Collie Mail, Central Districts Times, New Merridin Mercury, Northam Advertiser, Northern Times. Midlands Advocate & Times, Esperance Express, Midland Reporter. Beverley York Express, West Australian, Perth Daily News. W.A. Countrymay, Western Farmer and Grazier, National Farmer, Farmers Weekly.

LIST ‘F’-TASMANIA

Hobart Mercury, Launceston Examiner, Derwent Valley Gazette, Huon News, Scottsdale Advertiser, King Island News, Smithton Chronicle.

LIST ‘G’-NORTHERN TERRITORY

Darwin News, Alice Springs Centralian Advocate.

Customs Officers at Sydney Airport (Question No. 2668)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did an article appearing in the Daily Telegraph dated 12 March 1980 state that Customs officers were unable to effectively prevent drug smuggling at Sydney airport.
  2. How many Customs officers have been employed at Sydney airport in each of the years from 1 975-76 to 1 979-80.
  3. What has been the increase in the number of incoming air travellers to Australia in each of these years.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. The average daily staff employed at Sydney Airport is as follows:

(3)-

Sale of Cigarettes in Hospitals (Question No. 2685)

Senator Hamer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Why are there no positive moves to ban all cigarette smoking and the sale of cigarettes in all areas of hospitals including the wards, foyers and canteens.
  2. Is the Minister aware that many doctors, who are vitally concerned with the business of preventive medicine, feel that there can be no excuse for permitting an activity in hospitals that puts patients and personnel at risk.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (2) At its 81st Session in October 1975, the National Health and Medical Research Council (N.H. & M.R.C. ) recommended that, in order to preserve the rights of the non-smoker to avoid harmful effects from passive inhalation of tobacco smoke, responsible authorities in Australia should take action to prohibit smoking in a number of enclosed public places, which Council specified. These included hospitals and other health-care institutions, except in specially designated areas.

Council reaffirmed (and added to) that recommendation at its 82nd Session in October 1976, and commended the actions of States that had introduced legislation to control smoking in certain public places. Council also indicated that it was appreciative of the problems that exist in legislating to restrict smoking.

It should be noted that the N.H. & M.R.C. acts in an advisory capacity only, to governments in Australia on matters relating to public health. The question of implementation of Council’s recommendations is, therefore, primarily one for consideration by the individual governments concerned.

The honourable senator will be aware that the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare recognised that there are civil rights to be considered for both smokers and nonsmokers and, in its Report ‘Drug Problems in Australia- an Intoxicated Society?’, endorsed the recommendations of the N.H. & M.R.C. and proposed (Recommendation 42) that the recommendations be implemented immediately in areas under direct Commonwealth control and that State Governments and local government authorities be urged to implement the recommendations.

As announced in a Ministerial Statement in the Senate on 19 March 1980, the Government supported the Senate Committee’s Recommendation on this matter and noted that action has already been taken in some areas.

Health authorities in Australia are aware of the health and civil rights aspects associated with the problem of ‘passive smoking’, and it is encouraging to note that there has been a move towards banning smoking in hospitals and other health-care institutions. Indeed it is anticipated that, with the announced Australian Medical Association policy on this matter, this trend will increase.

As regards a ban on sales of cigarettes in all areas of hospitals the honourable senator is no doubt aware that legislation relating to the sale of cigarettes is principally a matter for the States.

Argentina: Human Rights (Question No. 2690)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 April 1980:

Has the Australian Government protested to the Government of Argentina regarding violations of human rights in that country, especially torture and extrajudicial killing of political prisoners; if not, will it do so?

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Government has repeatedly made it clear that it deplores violations of human rights wherever they occur. The Argentine authorities have been informed on a number of occasions of Australian concern regarding human rights in Argentina. It should be noted however that in recent months some improvement in the human rights situation there has been reported.

Importation of Cut Flowers (Question No. 2703)

Senator Neal:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Does the importation of fresh, cut flowers from overseas countries into Australia continue; if so. what are the countries of origin of these flowers.
  2. Is every canon of imported material opened and scrutinised.
  3. 3 ) Are the inspections for illegal material, insects, etc. of a random nature; if so, bearing in mind the inherent danger in such a system, will the Minister stop the importation of fresh flowers and encourage their growth by Australian interests.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

  1. Yes. During the period September 1979 to February 1980 approximately 1 1,000 cartons of fresh cut flowers were imported. Of these 93 per cent were orchids and anthuriums. The main countries of origin have been- orchids, Singapore and Thailand; anthuriums, Hawaii; carnations, New Zealand; chrysanthemums, New Zealand; roses, New Zealand and Colombia; other species, Netherlands.
  2. and (3) Every carton is opened but in only a sample of the boxes is every stem inspected. If live insects are found the consignment is fumigated. Inspection by sampling is the standard technique applied to exports and imports of agricultural products.

Current quarantine procedures for the continuing importation of cut flowers are considered adequate by my Department. They were reviewed at a recent meeting of the Consultation Committee on Cut Flowers which was appointed by my predecessor and which includes grower representatives. No proposals for change were forthcoming. However the Senate Committee on National Resources in its report on the adequacy of quarantine has recommended that the effectiveness of the present inspection methods be tested in a research project. This and other recommendations of the Committee are under consideration by the Government.

The importation of cut flowers relates to the volume of production in Australia. My Department advises that the main imports, orchids and anthuriums are not produced in sufficient numbers in Australia to meet demand. Other species such as carnations, chrysanthemums and roses are imported to meet seasonal shortages.

Overseas Aid (Question No. 2705)

Senator Primmer:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) What amount of aid funds have been allocated to:

    1. Indonesia;
    2. Philippines;
    3. Thailand;
    4. Malaysia; and
    5. Singapore.

For each year from 1 970 to 1 979.

  1. What amounts have actually been utilised by the countries to which funds were allocated.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Since 1977 the Government has established a broad framework of forward commitments to ASEAN countries (without specific year by year allocations). The status of this commitment when originally conceived and when revised in 1 979-80 is shown in the following ta bie:
  1. ) Annual disbursements of Australian assistance to the ASEAN countries for the years 1 970 to 1 979 are as follows:

All the aid disbursed was in the form of specific goods and services untilised in the execution of mutually agreed projects.

Petroleum Products: Distribution Costs (Question No. 2713)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 22 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) What are the distribution costs within Australia exrefineries for(a) avgas; (b) distillate; and (c) motor spirit.
  2. Do the oil companies provide the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs with those costs and does the Department have any means of verifying them.
  3. Are the individual company distribution costs supplied to the Department for the purpose of determining the effectiveness of the freight subsidy on refined products shipped to non-metropolitan areas.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) These costs vary according to factors such as the locality to which the products are supplied, the terms of sale, methods of delivery and quantities involved. The costs also vary between different companies. Having regard to the number of companies involved, the number of localities concerned and the other variables, it is not practicable to provide these details.
  2. No. However, when the oil companies seek increases in the prices of these products or in the freight differentials between localities the Prices Justification Tribunal requires them to provide cost information in support of the claimed increases, and it examines such information before determining what increases are justified.
  3. No. However the freight differentials found justified by the PJT are taken as the basis for determining rates of subsidy. The rates applicable as at 1 April 1980 were published in Gazette No. S 90 of 1 May 1980.

Pharmaceutical Benefits List (Question No. 2714)

Senator Melzer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Have any of the following brands of tablets, capsules or creams ever been included in the Pharmaceutical Benefits List: Amperone; AVC cream with Dienestrol; Benzestrol Chlorotrianisene; Comestrol; Cyren A and Cyren B; Delvinal; Des; Desplex; Di-erone; Diestryl; Dibestil; Dienestrol; Dienestrol cream; Dienestrol; Diethylstilboestrol Dipalmitate; Diethylstilbestrol Diphosphate; Diethylstilbestrol Dipropionate; Diethylstilbenediol; Digestil; Domestrol: Estan Estilben: Estrobene; Estrobene DP: Estrosyn: Fonatol; Gynben; Gyneben; Hexestrol; Hexdestrol; H-Bestrol; Menocrin; Meprane; Mestibol; Methallenestril; Metystil Microest; Mikarol; Mikarol Forte; Milestrol; Monomestrol Neo-Oestranol 1; Neo-Oestranol 2; Nulabort; Oestrogenine; Oestromerin; Oestromon: Orestrol; Pabestrol D; Palestrol; Progravidium; Restrol; Stil-Rol; Stilbal; Stilbestrol; Stilbestronate; Stilbetin; Stilbinol; Stilboestrolf; Stilboestrol I; Stilboestrol 2: Stilbestrate; Stilpalmitrate 1; Stilpalmitrate 2; Stilphostrol; Stilronate; Stilrone; Stils; Synestrin; Synestrol Synboestrin; Tace; Teserene; Tylandril; Tylosterone; Vallestril; Willestrol
  2. Are any of these brands of tablets, capsules or creams included in the current Pharmaceutical Benefits List.
  3. What are the brand names of any material currently included in the Pharmaceutical Benefits List which is not listed above but which includes Diethylstilbestrol.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Yes. ‘Tace’ chlorotrianisene tablets; dienoestrocream; dienoestrol tablets; hexoestrol tablets; stilboestrol diphosphate tablets; stilboestrol tablets.
  2. Yes. As for( 1) with the exception of hexoestrol tablets.
  3. .U …….. (stilboestrol diphosphate) tablets.

Kangaroos: Hong Kong Zoo (Question No. 2716)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 23 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) When was the last occasion on which approval was given for kangaroos to be exported to the Hong (Cong Zoo.
  2. Were their quarters at the zoo checked at the time of the approval and have they since been checked.
  3. Has the Minister noted criticism of the present condition of kangaroos at Hong Kong Zoo (vide page 8 of the Kangaroo Protection Co-operation Ltd Newsletter dated March 1980).
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) I am advised that the Hong Kong Zoo has never received any kangaroos from Australia. The only Australian fauna exported to the Hong Kong Zoo has been several shipments of birds in 1978 and 1979.

The Ocean Park Zoo, Hong Kong, was approved to receive ten ( I ) Eastern Grey Kangaroos on 30 June 1 976.

  1. The Ocean Park Zoo was inspected on 9 November 1 974 by a senior officer of the then Department of Environment and Conservation. It was reported at that time the standards of the establishment were extremely high and that any Australian animals sent there are likely to be well cared for.

The Ocean Park Zoo was re-inspected on 15 November 1979 by an officer of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. It was found that kangaroos were being held in a high security area pending building of a new enclosure.

  1. Yes. Concern has been officially expressed by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs to the Ocean Park Zoo authorities at the delay in rehousing the kangaroos. No more exports of fauna will be permitted to the Zoo until satisfactory accommodation is provided.

Customs Officers at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport (Question No. 2724)

Senator Cavanagh:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 23 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister make available the submissions and evidence given to the Public Service inquiry into the charge of misconduct, under section 55 (2) of the Public Service Act 1922, against two Customs officials who were charged on 5 October 1979 with ‘improper conduct’ as a result of having in their possession articles of jewellery taken from a passenger’s luggage while such officers were making a search of such luggage.
  2. ) Will the Minister disclose the two officers’ accounts of how they obtained the articles.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. I ) and ( 2 ) Under Section 5 5 of the Public Service Act, the Chief Officer has the power to deal with offences. In this case, normal procedures were followed. A full investigation was carried out and on the basis of legal advice received, disciplinary action was taken under Section 55 (2) of the Public Service Act.

For reasons of personal privacy, details of disciplinary proceedings against employees are not generally disclosed.

Low Alcohol Beer (Question No. 2770)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has any study been made into the acceptance and advisability of encouraging consumption of low alcohol beer.
  2. What is the most recent percentage figure available to indicate the degree of the market penetrated by low alcohol beer.
  3. What is the relative excise on normal and low alcohol beer based on its alcohol content.
  4. Have representations been made by health interests for a considerable lowering of excise on low alcohol beer, even if this is done at the expense of regular beer.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The report from the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare ‘Drug Problems in Australia-An Intoxicated Society’ supported the proposition that breweries should be encouraged to research, produce and market a low-alcohol beer, and expressed the hope that, even if the impact on the market were small, this would at least make some contribution to the lowering of overall levels of consumption with a consequent reduction in alcohol-related problems. I am unaware of any studies made in this context.
  2. Monitoring exercises conducted by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs suggest the present market penetration is about 10 per cent Australia wide.
  3. Excise is currently levied at the rate of 52 cents per litre of beer regardless of whether it is normal or low alcohol beer.
  4. Yes.

Social Security: Supporting Parent’s Benefits (Question No. 2818)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 13 May 1980:

What is the rate of payment made weekly to a supporting parent under 1 8 in the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The maximum rate of supporting parent’s benefit is $61.05 per week, plus $4 or $6 per week as mother’s allowance and $7.50 per week for each child.

Registered Travel Agents (Question No. 2821)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 1 4 May 1 980:

  1. Did the 11-24 February 1980 issue of Travelweek make reference, on page 20, to figures released in the first week of February 1980 by the Bank Settlement Plan Steering Panel which indicates that 653 International Air Transport Association (IATA) agency locations earned a total of $80m in commission on gross sales of $95 lm in 1979.
  2. How many registered travel agents operate in Australia.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. I ) and (2 ) See my answer to Question No. 264 1 .

Department of Business and Consumer Affairs: Appointments of Senior Staff (Question No. 2852)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 6 May 1 980:

What are the names and employment classifications of all persons who have been appointed to positions in the Second Division and above within the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs since December 1975 who were not previously public servants.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

There have been no persons appointed to positions in the Second Division or above within the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs since December 1975 who were not previously public servants.

Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs: Appointments to Statutory Authorities (Question No. 2879)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 6 May 1 980;

What are the names, dates and terms of appointment and salaries of all persons appointed to the Boards and Commissions of statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

Senator Durack:
LP

– the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 May 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19800522_senate_31_s85/>.