Senate
23 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 2759

PETITIONS

Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present four petitions, similar in wording, from 3 1, 47, 246 and 263 citizens of Australia respectively, as follows:

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

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

Employees and self-employed contributions to approved superannuation fund. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should approve that:

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received, and first petition read.

Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 251 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

Employees and self-employed contributions to approved superannuation fund.

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present three petitions, identical in wording, from 2276, 2095 and 6206 citizens of Australia respectively, as follows:

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

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

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.

Petitions received.

Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present two petitions, identical in wording, from 271 and 276 citizens of Australia respectively, as follows:

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

The Humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-

Employees and Self-Employed Contributions to approved Superannuation Fund. Your Petitioners humbly pray that:

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industries

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– I present two petitions, from 80 and 140 citizens of Australia respectively, as follows:

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

The petitions of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That we the undersigned are gravely concerned at the recommendations of the Draft Report by the Industries Assistance Commission on textiles, clothing and footwear which will- affect the employment of all employees and staff of Tootal Australia Ltd.

Your petitioners therefore pray that their protest be registered and that the proposed recommendations outlined in the Report be not enacted.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received, and first petition read.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

Senator DAVIDSON:

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

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

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth-

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– On behalf of Senator Keeffe I present the following petition from13 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth-

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray-

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Security Benefits

Senator GIETZELT:

– On behalf of Senator Keeffe I present the following petition from 63 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

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

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Security Benefits

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 302 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

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

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Uranium Mining and Enrichment

Senator GIETZELT:

-On behalf of Senator Keeffe I present the following petition from 45 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received and read.

Western Australia: Legal Representation

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– I present a petition from one citizen of Australia, namely, Mr John Goldring, acting on behalf of the Australian Legal Workers Group, as follows:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate of the Parliament of Australia Assembled.

The undersigned citizen of Australia, representing the Australian Legal Workers Group, respectfully showeth:

Since the effective abandonment of the Australian Legal Aid Office in Western Australia and the transfer of responsibility for legal aid to the Western Australian Legal Aid Commission, legal aid is often denied to poor persons on trial of serious crimes.

On 18 October 1978, Brian Mclnnis of Her Majesty’s Prison, Fremantle, was tried in the Supreme Court of Western Australia on a charge, the penalty for which is a maximum of life imprisonment. He could not afford a lawyer, his application for legal aid was rejected and he was forced to trial with almost no notice that he would be unrepresented. The circumstances are set out in Mclnnis v The Queen in the March issue of the Australian Law Journal reports. He was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment which he is now serving.

In Western Australia, denial of legal representation in very serious criminal cases is not unusual, as the Crown counsel informed the High Court. It also occurs in other States. This means that Australia is violating universally accepted fundamental standards ofjustice and the rule of law.

Your petitioner therefore humbly prays that the Senate refer this petition to the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report on whether the universal standards of justice are being observed in Western Australia in regard to provision of legal aid for poor persons on serious criminal charges; if not, why there is no judicial remedy; and what measures the Commonwealth alone or in co-operation with the States take to ensure that the universal standards are observed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

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

Social Security Benefits

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

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

  1. 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 Carrick, Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (2 petitions), O’Byrne and Puplick.

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 a nd about 1 6 per cent by the year 2020.

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

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

That Australia is in urgent need of locally raised investment capital for national development and that life insurance and superannuation funds are important mobiliscrs 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 time 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 per cent of Life Insurance premiums up to a limit of $2500.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Thomas and Lajovic.

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 ofAustralia:

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

That the National Women’s Advisory Council isa 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 you petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard.

Petition received.

Metric System

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And you petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp.

Petition received.

page 2762

TRADE PRACTICES CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

Notice of Motion

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

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

That the Senate call on the Government to state its attitude towards the recommendations of the Trade Practices Consultative Committee report on the Trade Practices Act and small business with particular reference to:

The likely impact of the repeal of section 49 on small business; and

the impact of the report’s recommendations on the concentration of market power in the hands of big business.

page 2762

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2762

QUESTION

FRASER MINISTRY: SHARES IN RUNDLE PROJECT

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I remind him that on Wednesday I asked him whether he would establish from the Prime Minister whether any Minister of this Government held, directly or indirectly, shares in Southern Pacific Petroleum NL or Central Pacific Minerals NL.I ask: Has he obtained that information from the Prime Minister?

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

– That information has not come to hand as yet. I will make sure that the matter is brought to the Prime Minister’s attention, if that has not been done by now.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister be clear? Has the matter indicated in my question on Wednesday been drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister? Can Senator Carrick say whether the Prime Minister has been informed of my question of two days ago?

Senator CARRICK:

– The procedure in this place is that when any question is to be referred to a Minister it is sent to the office and the staff of the Minister. That has been done in connection with Senator Wriedt’s question. I cannot say whether the Prime Minister has had time to consider the question. What I did say in reply to Senator Wriedt was that if the question had not been brought to his attention I would make sure that that it was.

page 2762

QUESTION

ECONOMY

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister representing the Treasurer noted the growing confidence in the business community regarding future prospects in the Australian economy? Do recent statements from official Treasury sources justify this optimism? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the latest indicators with respect to employment, investment, retail sales and overseas trade?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I hope that all honourable senators will have had the chance to read the May1980 edition of the ‘Round-up of Economic Statistics ‘ put out by the Treasury. It gives some very interesting information. For those who cannot or will not read, may I give some indicators. On long term investment and anticipations data made by the Australian Statistician, there is a very strong growth in business investment in 1980-81. Total employment has continued on a firm upward basis -

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Messner wanted information. The Minister has told us that the information is available in a certain publication. There is no need for him to repeat it. If the honourable senator wants the information, it is available for him to read. He has been told where he can find it. It is a waste of Question Time to have information repeated from a publication which was handed to every member.

The PRESIDENT:

– Ministers have the freedom to reply to questions in the way they wish.

Senator CARRICK:

– Total employment has continued on a firm upward trend, with the average level in the March quarter being 2.6 per cent higher than in the same quarter of 1 979. According to the labour force survey, April was the sixth successive month in which the levels and rates of unemployment for both the total full time labour forces were below those recorded in the corresponding month a year earlier. There was a significant increase in both housing finance and private dwelling approvals in the March quarter. Retail sales recorded a strong increase in the

March quarter. Passenger motor vehicle registrations rose moderately for the quarter. Growth in the volume of money slowed somewhat in March. The tap system for issuing of Commonwealth bonds commenced on 30 April, and there have been large sales of the medium term tap stock. A record trade surplus led to the virtual elimination of the current account deficit in April, notwithstanding a large net invisible deficit. The facts are overwhelmingly pointing to a very strong and vigorous economy.

page 2763

QUESTION

REGISTRATION OF CHIROPRACTORS

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. By way of preface I inform the Minister that the Preston Institute of Technology will be interested in the answer to this question. A course for chiropractors is conducted at that institute. Five States now require chiropractors to be registered. I refer the Minister to the fact also that they have to pay fees approximating $2,500 a year for a four-year course. I ask the Minister: What steps, if any, are being taken to obtain approval from the Tertiary Education Commission as a matter of urgency in order to avoid the rather discriminatory treatment presently placed upon students of chiropractic and the profession of chiropractic and in order to avoid the danger that students will not even be able to complete their courses because of high fees?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I do not have that information immediately before me. I am aware that last year the matter was under review by the Tertiary Education Commission. I understand that in Victoria attempts were being made to ratify the course. I will seek the information as soon as possible for Senator Button and I will endeavour to let him have it.

page 2763

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Attorney-General. I refer to previous questions to the Attorney-General relating to the Government’s overdue response to the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the Freedom of Information Bill, the report of which was tabled in the Senate on 6 November 1979. On the assumption that the Government will not now make its response before the end of this sitting, will the Government undertake that no such response will be made during the recess at a time when senators and members will have no opportunity of commenting on it either before or when the response is tabled in Parliament? Will the Government respond to the suggestion I made to the Attorney-General that in accordance with the Canadian precedent the Government instruct the Public Service to comply immediately with the spirit of the freedom of information proposals already made by the Government?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I regret to say that I cannot respond this session, as I had hoped, to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the Freedom of Information Bill.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– But you undertook to do so.

Senator DURACK:

-I do not know that I undertook to do so. I said that it was my intention to do so and that I certainly hoped to do so. There should be an understanding in the Senate of the problems of government and the manifold problems that there are, particularly at the end of the session. Many questions have to be dealt with by the Government. This is a very major recommendation by the Committee. I think that over 100 recommendations have been made. They go to the whole framework and basis of freedom of information concepts. Major questions have to be resolved. I would not expect either the Senate or the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee to want a response which was not fully considered and which did not deal fully with every aspect of the report. I think the report deserves that.

It is a major report and I think it deserves a major, careful and detailed response. It has not been possible to achieve that in recent weeks, since the Government has had my submission before it. I must also confess that my absence overseas for three weeks has contributed to the delay. The fact of the matter is that the Government has made very substantial progress with the consideration of the report. Until the beginning of this week I had hoped that it would be possible to make the response this sitting. I think that that work will now be completed by the Government within the next few weeks. I will certainly undertake to Senator Missen that a response will not be made until the Parliament reassembles for the Budget session and that it will be made in the Senate and to the Parliament. Senator Missen raised another matter about which he asked me a question some days ago. He made an interesting suggestion which I have noted. I have not yet pursued it because, as I said, I was hoping that an official response would be made during this session. I think one must bear in mind that a delay of only a few weeks over the recess is involved. I certainly intend to give further consideration to Senator Missen ‘s proposal.

page 2764

QUESTION

URANIUM SALES TO SOUTH KOREA

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

-I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the deteriorating situation in the Republic of Korea. Does the Minister agree that in at least one city the situation appears to amount to a massive civil insurrection against the corrupt and oppressive martial law regime? What conclusions can be drawn with regard to the future stability of the South Korean Government? Does that Government appear to have lost the support of a large section of the population? Finally, does the Australian Government still consider South Korea to be a fit and proper country to purchase Australian uranium?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Clearly there are some signs of instability at both the political level and the social level in South Korea. As can be seen from the news, there is clearly some significant instability in one city. I cannot say what that means in toto, over the whole nation. I do not think Senator Chipp inferred that it could be said to refer to the whole nation. That will take some assessment. It is quite clear that ever since the assassination of President Park there has been a significant degree of instability in South Korea. That is a matter of assessment. I cannot make a prognosis as to whether the nation will remain destabilised or whether it will find unity for the future.

As to the purport of his question, which is whether we regard the nation as being one to which we should sell uranium, I say that when we sell uranium we sell it under the strictest nonproliferation conditions and supervision. Therefore, we sell it only to those nations that are parties in good standing to the Treaty on Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Of course, that Treaty has been accepted up to now by the Republic of Korea. Australia and Korea signed a bilateral nuclear safeguards agreement on 2 May last year, which incorporated all the requirements of the Australian Government’s stringent nuclear safeguards policy. In tabling that agreement in the Parliament the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that its conclusion provided a basis for shipment of Australian uranium to the Republic of Korea under commercial contracts. The fact of the matter is that no one can say whether any nation with which one trades will continue to be stable a few months later. For example, we saw the destabilisation of the ministry in Japan only recently. The fact is that Australia will pursue stringently all the elements of the non-proliferation pact. If any nation changes its structure or conditions and cannot adhere to that pact, of course the trade will not persist.

Senator CHIPP:

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his answer. He stated that the stringent terms of the Non-proliferation Treaty virtually depended on the stability of the nations with which we have that Treaty. Therefore, I ask the Minister to answer, from the massive brief he gets from the Department of Foreign Affairs each Question Time, the question: What advice can be given to the Senate regarding the Government’s actions concerning the future stability of the South Korean Government at this time? Is the information the Minister has given all the information he has from his colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs?

Senator CARRICK:

-I thought I made it clear that conditions in South Korea at this moment are fluid. No one can say whether a stable government will emerge. I think that is what the Department of Foreign Affairs would want me to say on this matter. If any further information can be supplied on this briefing that would be helpful to Senator Chipp, I will seek it today and see whether I can let him have it.

page 2764

QUESTION

EDUCATION: COMMONWEALTH EXPENDITURE

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Education aware of a campaign launched by various groups, including the Australian Teachers Federation and the Australian Union of Students, to increase Commonwealth expenditure on education? In view of the fact that in fiscal year 1 979-80 expenditure on education is estimated to be 8 per cent of Budget outlays and is exeeded only by payments to the States and expenditure on social security, health and defence, can the Minister indicate whether there is any validity in claims that the Commonwealth Government is avoiding its commitment to education?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have seen the claims by various interest groups and the pressures to increase education spending. The fact of the matter is that over recent years the reports of the Schools Commission have shown an enormous and unprecedented progress in the development of the targets for schools.

Senator Button:

– It is not unprecedented. Don’t talk rubbish.

Senator CARRICK:

-I remind Senator Button that the Karmel Committee and the Schools

Commission set up targets to be achieved years ahead and that, in fact, under the funding of this Government the targets were achieved two or three years ahead of the specified time. So the funding by the Commonwealth has surpassed the targets set. I make only one qualification; that is, that the progress made by the nongovernment sector, having 90 per cent of its schools in a sub-economic sector, has lagged, although under this Government the gap has narrowed. There is every need, as the Schools Commission indicates, to narrow that gap. Indeed, the guidelines that have been pursued are doing that. There is every reason to believe that the funding by both State and Federal governments, taken together, has produced a major and most rapid reform in Australia in the volume of money flowing to schools. What is in question is whether, qualitatively, the processes being pursued throughout Australia in different ways are as realistic and as valuable as they might be. There are two elements to education: The volume of money and the quality of the resources, both the human and the physical resouces, applied. A great deal of soul-searching has been done in recent years to get qualitative reforms. This Government, through the Williams Committee and other sources, is pursuing those reforms.

page 2765

QUESTION

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Attorney-General and refers to the announcement made in March this year by him and the Minister for Social Security that from 1 April the Administrative Appeals Tribunal would be able to deal with appeals in social security matters against decisions of the Director-General of Social Services. Have members of the Tribunal with special interests in or special knowledge of social security been appointed? Has any information been distributed to people who may wish to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, giving them any idea of the mechanisms or the administrative procedures of how to do this? If not, when will the Administrative Appeals Tribunal become accessible to such appellants?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The system of social security appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, under the conditions that have been described in the past, has come into operation. I cannot answer the question about what information has been distributed to make this fact known, although there has been a lot of public comment about the appeals system and it should be known fairly widely. I will inquire whether fuller information should be made available.

Certainly people now have that right to appeal in circumstances in which the Director-General has not accepted the recommendation of one of the existing social security appeals tribunals. Three appointments have been made of people with experience in the social welfare field to assist on panels of the AAT. I feel that there would be a number of people who would already be aware of their rights. As I said, I cannot say how widely the matter has been publicised, other than in the publicity given to statements that have been made by the Minister and me. I will take note of that matter and make further inquiries about it.

Senator GRIMES:

- Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I want the matter clarified. Can the Attorney-General tell us who are the people with the special knowledge who have been appointed? Are people who have decisions made against them by the Director-General of Social Services notified that they can appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal?

Senator DURACK:

– I have already dealt with the second part of that question. As I said, I do not know what publicity has been given to the matter, other than that which has been given to the statments that we have made on behalf of the Government. I will look into that matter. I will issue a statement in regard to the people appointed to the AAT and their qualifications.

page 2765

QUESTION

PETROL RESELLING INDUSTRY

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of the concerns that petrol resellers are expressing as they consider that no real public response has been made by the Government to the Fife package proposals on petrol resales? Can the Minister say whether the Government is ready to make a response on the Fife package, particularly with regard to any proposed legislation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I am aware that the independent operators of service stations have expressed considerable concern at what they regard as the deteriorating conditions of trade arising out of their relationship with the oil companies and their claim that they are discriminated against as between their franchise and that of the commission agents who operate oil company sites. I am acutely aware of that situation and that matter has been under intense examination over a period of months. That examination resulted in what Senator Young rightly calls the Fife package. It resulted in the emergence of a draft Bill on franchise, which has been circulated. The public discussion on that Bill and the response from the operators and others will be of enormous value to the Government in formulating its policies. So a great deal has been done already in seeking information and in the movement towards positive measures.

There are two other matters that the operators claim need attention prior to any policy formation. One is their claim of price discrimination; their claim that the wholesale price and conditions of sale to them by the oil companies are detrimental to them compared with the conditions of wholesale supply to commission agents. The other factor is their claim that unless there is divorcement by the oil companies this matter will not be resolved. These are major matters that need the most careful attention.

The Government has indicated that it is awaiting keenly the report of the Trade Practices Commission on this whole matter. My understanding is that the Trade Practices Commission will be reporting in a week or two. The Government will have that report before it and it will put it under study. We will have the evidence that the Commission has been able to get from discussions on the franchise Bill and from other discussions, and then the Government will be in a position to formulate its future policies. I make it perfectly clear that the Government is giving very great attention and concentration to what is a difficult and very complex problem indeed.

page 2766

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM SMELTERS: ELECTRICITY TARIFFS

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I refer the Minister for National Development and Energy to his answer to question on notice No. 5800 from Mr Hayden, in which the Minister said that the Federal Government does not know the details of electricity tariffs applying to operating aluminium smelters, and is neither involved in nor kept informed on negotiations about tariffs to be set for planned smelters. Has the Minister frequently stated the Government ‘s view that correct prices are the basis for a national energy policy? Does his Government’s failure even to keep itself informed on electricity prices charged to aluminium smelters mean that he cannot implement a national energy policy? Why has the Government decided to take no interest in the energy prices paid by the largely overseas owned and controlled aluminium industry while closely overseeing rapidly rising prices for fuels used by Australian motorists, farmers, small business and many other industries through its world parity pricing policy for indigenous oil? Will existing and planned smelters consume for electricity up to 9 million tonnes of black coal and 6 million tonnes of brown coal per annum by 1990?

Finally, has the Government decided to take no interest in the pricing of power in the aluminium industry, despite its responsibility and duty, as a member of the Loan Council, to see that infrastructure borrowings for the coal and power station projects necessary for this industry are conducted in the national interest?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Both in the Whitlam Government’s time and in the Fraser Government’s time it has been traditional that electricity generation in Australia should be done by the States. Both in the Whitlam Government’s time and in the Fraser Government’s time the tariffs charged by the States to individual industries and to domestic consumers have been the decision of the States. As I understand it, there was no attempt by the Labor Party to intervene when it had the opportunity. The fact is, and it is an old fashioned view, that if a sovereign government is doing its job it is at least as wise as those who may be in Canberra. That of course is not the Labor Party’s thesis, because the Labor Party wants to abolish the States.

Unlike the Labor Party, the Fraser Government has acted vigorously on this matter. The Fraser Government announced some months ago that it was setting up a committee to study the feasibility and all related aspects of an electric power grid, including South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales. Perhaps prospectively -

Senator Walsh:

– That has nothing to do with the question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order, Senator Walsh!

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr President, those who say that it has nothing to do with the question reveal their crass ignorance of the matter. The fact is that any study of the terms of reference will reveal that the Government is trying to do two things: To ensure that there is for Australia a total supply of power to exceed the demand for the future so that there can be growth, both domestically and industrially, and so that there can be more jobs, and that that supply will be developed -

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr President, I again wish to take a point of order. I had to take a similar point of order last Friday. The Minister has lost control of himself again on this occasion. Senator McLaren asked a straightforward question and the Minister is making no attempt to answer it. Instead, he is making a long speech. Mr President, I draw your attention once more to the rulings you have given on this matter. I believe that honourable senators, particularly those on this side of the House, are observing the rulings you have given by cutting their questions short. The Minister is once again making a long second reading speech. He has not yet referred to the subject matter of Senator McLaren’s question. I ask you again to remind the Minister of his obligations.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator McLaren’s question was unduly long. I think that is undesirable. Similarly, I reiterate that Ministers should reply to the specific points raised in a question. I ask the Minister to reply.

Senator CARRICK:

-I face a very real dilemma. The question was long, complex and important. Therefore I intend, with the indulgence of the Senate, to reply to that question. I have said that the proposal for an electric power grid is to ensure an adequate supply ahead of demand so that jobs can be created in Australia and the most practical methods can be employed throughout the various States to provide the cheapest electricity possible in Australia. Absolutely vital and fundamental to the question that Senator McLaren asked is the fact that we are taking such steps.

I hope that in Australia no one will start a campaign to reject the idea that Australia should be providing aluminium smelters. Australia is now producing 280,000 tonnes of aluminium metal a year; in five years time we will be producing 1.3 million tonnes; and a few years after that we will be producing two million tonnes. Australia will be a significant producer in the world. We will be enormously stronger in job creation in industry and defence. I regret very much that anyone should be finding fault with the development of such a great industry in Australia.

Senator McLAREN:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. It arises out of the fact that the Minister did not answer my question in full, as I required. In fact, he made the statement that certain things were Labor Party policy years ago. The Minister knows full well that he tells us repeatedly that the Government has overturned Labor Party policy. He says that it was not good policy. But the Government is not prepared to overturn this one. Is the Minister relying on the committee which is examining the south-eastern Australian power grid for the information which we are seeking? Will the committee be able to take evidence in public rather than in camera?

Senator CARRICK:

-I am not relying totally on the committee. In fact, I have had some informal discussions with several of the Premiers, and will continue to do so, to ensure that adequate electricity will be available. Senator McLaren referred to infrastructure financing at the Loan

Council. That financing is an innovation of the Fraser Government. The Government will be seeking to talk to the States to see whether there can be an expansion of infrastructure financing for electricity generation. This will be a major indication on our pan. There will be attempts- I do not know whether at committee hearings or in other informal discussions- to get the necessary information. I am not able to say whether Sir David Zeidler ‘s committee proposes to meet in public or in private. That is a matter for the committee to decide. I can fully understand- Senate committees repeatedly uphold this view- that such confidential information on a trading basis is often regarded as having a need for protection. It may well be that the evidence will be taken in private.

page 2767

QUESTION

ELECTRIC CARS

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy. In order to assist in the Government policy to conserve petroleum fuels, has the Government considered the abolition or reduction of duty on imported electric cars and also a reduction in sales tax on these vehicles? If not, will the Government consider the proposition?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-The whole question of electric vehicles is occupying my Department and me very considerably. There will obviously be a development in the world of electric vehicles. Some of the automotive industries have announced that they will be producing them in about three or four years time. I do not know whether they will be produced in Australia. The question of duty and sales tax on them is a policy matter. It also depends, of course, on an evaluation of whether they would be a successful operation and therefore ought to be encouraged as such. I will continue the study in my Department. I will refer the policy nature of the question to the Treasurer.

page 2767

QUESTION

SHIPMENT OF CATTLE TO INDONESIA

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

-Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of Press reports from Indonesia of allegations of corruption against President Suharto concerning his ownership of a cattle property which the Australian Prime Minister visited in 1976 and to which it is alleged cattle donated by Australia to Indonesia as part of our aid program to that country were diverted? Will the Government try to ascertain the truth of these allegations, and if they are true make clear to the Indonesian Government that shipment of cattle from this country under our aid programs is for the purpose of helping the Indonesian people and not personal gain by members of that country’s Government?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-My understanding is that there have been media reports that a retired Army officer has made accusations against President Suharto in a petition to the Indonesian Parliament. That may be the source of which Senator Primmer speaks. I am also aware of another critical petition, signed by a number of Opposition figures, which was presented to the Indonesian Parliament last week. Neither the Government nor I am able to say what is the truth or otherwise of the substance of such matters. Senator Primmer will know that within parliaments, including the Australian Parliament, a considerable number of allegations are made which, upon examination, are found to be either totally false or put in another perspective. I make no judgment on that at all.

It is true that the Australian Government presented a stud bull to President Suharto for use on his farm at Ciawi near Bogor following a visit by the Prime Minister to the farm in 1976. Gifts to national leaders are common by all governments, of all political persuasions. I do not think there is anything significant in that, but fundamentally it would be wrong of course if there were a connection between such things and any form of corruption. I cannot comment on it. I will refer the question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and seek further information.

Senator PRIMMER:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. I put it to the Minister that when he does take the matter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs he ask that Minister to carry out whatever investigations are possible to prove or disprove these allegations.

Senator CARRICK:

-I will direct the substance of Senator Primmer’s question to the Minister.

page 2768

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Senator Kilgariff having addressed a question to the Minister for National Development and Energy-

The PRESIDENT:

– That question is not within the province of the Minister. Knowledge of other organisations is not a matter upon which a question may be asked seeking specific information.

page 2768

QUESTION

CUBAN REFUGEES AND NON-MOSLEM MINORITIES IN TURKEY

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, concerns

Australia’s refugee intake policy and is twotiered. Firstly, when will I get an answer to my question as to whether the United Sates made a direct appeal to Australia concerning an intake of 500 Cubans or whether the appeal was made through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees? Secondly, what is Australia’s attitude in the face of concern by the World Council of Churches for the treatment of non-Moslem minorities in Turkey?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

– I will need to refer those matters to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to seek a response for Senator Mulvihill. I realise that, with the closing of the session, he would not have an answer in the Senate for some time. However, I will see whether any information can be sent to him directly.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. I may be at fault, but during those fateful nights when discussion of the Estimates was drastically curbed the Minister, according to the dialogue recorded in Hansard, had something to say on the second question. Due to some confusion I did not get a chance to raise it. I thought that the Minister would have it in her briefing notes.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI have some information with regard to the second matter raised. If the honourable senator would like me to give that to him I could do so and ensure that the rest of the question was directed to the Minister. The information I have is that Australia recognises the international definition of a refugee, which can be paraphrased as being a person who, owing to a wellfounded fear of persecution, is outside his country of origin or habitual residence. Members of minority groups who are still in their country of origin or citizenship cannot be regarded as refugees under the international definition. Australia already provides places in its refugee program for Assyrian christians who have fled persecution in Iraq. This year we expect to receive about 600. Australia also provides more generally for the acceptance of refugees from elsewhere who apply for resettlement in Australia through Australian missions abroad. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is currently examining the treatment of various minority groups in several countries in the Middle East. This study includes those countries about which Senator Mulvihill has expressed interest. I will see that any other information sought in the question which Senator Mulvihill has directed to me today is responded to directly to him.

page 2769

QUESTION

SHIPPING OF WHEAT

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware that since the removal of the wheat ship South Esk from the Tasmanian run and its replacement by the larger ‘Lake’ vessels, feed wheat is no longer available in northern Tasmania, so that livestock producers depending on grain feeding are forced to pay a very much higher price for higher grade wheat, thus causing some financial problems? This, together with the rapidly rising price of wheat, is causing difficulties especially to pig and poultry producers. Will the Australian Wheat Board consider building additional storage facilities to service producers with a wider variety of wheat grades to meet the larger volumes which are now carried by the ‘ Lake ‘ vessels?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I can understand Senator Watson’s keen interest in this matter, but I have no first-hand knowledge of it. I will refer the question to the Minister for Primary Industry, draw his attention to the suggestion Senator Watson has made and ask him to give consideration to it.

page 2769

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS

Senator GIETZELT:

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether the April publication of the Australian Bureau of Statistics headed ‘The Labour Force’ contains the following statement:

Following the large increase in March 1980 estimated total employment decreased in all States in April to a level of 6,192,100 persons, 18,000 above the estimate for February. However, as survey estimates are subject to sampling variability large-short term fluctuations in them must be interpreted with care.

Is it a fact that the sampling variability is as minute as one in 100,000? Is it also a fact that if the Bureau had compared the April figures with the March figures, which is the normal practice, instead of the February figures, they would have shown a decline in total employment of 5 1 ,000 and not an increase of 1 8,000? Finally, has the Bureau given up its independence and now become merely a political arm of the Government?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I find offence in the last pan of the question. It suggests that public servants are becoming political and are losing their objectivity. I reject outright any suggestion that any officer of the Bureau of Statistics is doing other than an honest objective job and providing honest objective comment. I hope that the public servants of Australia understand the implications of that gratuitous insult.

Senator Walsh:

– Like those Press releases of Laurie Power- full of lies.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Walsh, again you have accused the Minister of lying. You persist in interjections of innuendo and direct charge.

Senator Walsh:

- Mr President, I said that Laurie Power writes Press releases for Senator Carrick and that they are full of lies. I did not say that Senator Carrick writes them. Laurie Power is one of those independent public servants who Senator Carrick claims are around.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Carrick:

– I rise to order. Mr Laurie Power does not write Press statements for me. Mr Power is a co-ordination officer for the Government. I authorise and frequently write in detail my own Press statements. I object to the fact that someone should use the protection of this place to allege that a well respected senior journalist of the Press gallery writes lies. I hope that the journalists take note of the fact that Senator Walsh uses the protection of the Parliament as a coward ‘s castle to attack journalists.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! There is no Standing Order to protect people who cannot reply for themselves in this place. It is up to the decency of members of parliament not to say things which are hurtful to somebody who cannot reply as we can if we are so charged by anybody in this chamber. It is a thing which we have to watch out for very carefully because when this sort of thing happens it harms the Parliament’s acceptance by the people.

Senator CARRICK:

– Let me respond to the first three factors raised by Senator Gietzelt. I believe that he has quoted accurately and selectively from the report of the Bureau of Statistics. But, of course, he should first of all note that the Bureau states that there may be a statistical aberration there. In any case he should note that the month itself is likely to be an aberration because, according to the labour force survey, April was the sixth successive month in which the levels and rates of unemployment for both the total full time labour forces were below those recorded in the corresponding month a year earlier. I also repeat that total employment has continued on a firm upward trend, with the average level in the March quarter being 2.6 per cent higher than in the same quarter of 1979. So without being narrowly selective, I believe the message to be taken from the report is one of good news- that the employment level in Australia is growing.

Senator GIETZELT:

-I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Is it not a fact that this is the first occasion on which a notation has been placed at the end of the report indicating a difference in attitude? Is it not a fact that this is the first time also that the figures have been compared, not with the previous month, but with the month preceding the previous month?

Senator CARRICK:

-I do not know. I will refer the matter to the Treasurer and see whether he can comment on both those factors.

page 2770

QUESTION

FISHING INDUSTRY

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– In view of resolution 12:2 of the Australian Fisheries Council meeting of 2 November 1979, can the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry ascertain which of the joint feasibility studies which have been or are in force had permission to fish within the 12-mile zone and which, if any, had access to the 3-mile zone?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I will refer that matter to the Minister for Primary Industry and seek expert advice.

page 2770

QUESTION

MARALINGA ATOMIC TESTS

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It concerns the Government’s rejection of an inquiry into the claimed deaths of Aboriginals following the Maralinga atomic tests. I ask the Minister: What information prompted such an early decision? Was any advice sought from nuclear authorities by the Government? If so, will the Minister name the individuals who advised the Government?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The fact is that the Government only said that it would not at this stage seek a total universal inquiry into the matter. It said that it was asking individuals, whether Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal, to come forward. It is eagerly seeking information from people who wish to come forward so that it can get expert advice and make an examination of the matter. I made that quite clear statement. Recently the Minister of Health in the South Australian Parliament, Mrs Adamson, made a statement on the progress report upon a health study of Aborigines within that State and therefore in the Maralinga area. I do not have the statement immediately to hand, but from my recollection she said that from the evidence already obtained in the pursuit of this matter there was no indication of any undue incidence of illness which might suggest an effect of radioactivity, but that the State Government was pursuing a detailed study of Aborigines in South Australia. That information will be available; it will become public.

I make it clear that this Government is keen to get all the facts that it possibly can on this matter.

It makes an open invitation to individual members of the public and is seeking the cooperation of the State Government in terms of the Aborigines. Of course, it has indicated that it will use the expert advice of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council to advise us on this. If it is revealed that there is a need for a more global study, that will come from those two expert bodies and the Government will evaluate the matter then. It would not be true to say that we have rejected study. In fact, we are eagerly advocating that people should come forward so that the available evidence can be examined.

page 2770

QUESTION

SKILLED WORKERS

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs refers to the shortfalls in skilled workers in most industries in Australia and indications that these shortfalls will limit Australia ‘s capacity to expand and create other job opportunities. Is it a fact that the failure to attract the necessary numbers of suitable young people to apprenticeships, with the attendant hard slog of three or four years further study and development of skill of hand, can be attributed to, firstly, the inadequate margin in pay between skilled and unskilled or casual workers and, secondly, the reluctance of trade unions to allow industry to increase the numbers of apprenticeships? Would not the solution be for the Government to intervene to negotiate meaningful margins for skills so that just rewards for training are provided? Will the Government examine the possibility of introducing civilian apprenticeship training schemes similar to those used by the armed services and using technical and further education facilities rather than simply funding TAFE colleges to engage in all sorts of community oriented courses that do not lead to improved job opportunities.

Senator DURACK:
LP

-It is true that the failure to attract the necessary numbers of suitable young people to apprenticeships, as Senator Lewis mentions, can be attributed to the reasons he has given, namely, the inadequate margin in pay between skilled and unskilled workers and the reluctance of trade unions to allow industry to increase the number of apprenticeships. Those points are accepted as major factors. The solutions suggested by Senator Lewis need a good deal of consideration. I will refer them to the Minister for Industrial Relations and ask him to give them urgent consideration so that he can provide a reply to Senator Lewis as soon as possible.

page 2771

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT: PILOT TRAINING

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Minister representing the Minister for Defence will be aware that a part of the enormous costs associated with the acquisition and operation of the Government VIP Boeing 707 aircraft is an arrangement with Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd for the use of a simulator in the conversion training of Royal Australian Air Force pilots. Can the Minister confirm that the simulator is located in Hong Kong and, if that is so, can he tell the Senate how many RAAF personnel have travelled from Australia to Hong Kong to undertake the conversion course, how long each group stayed in Hong Kong, and the total cost to the Australian taxpayer of the Government’s scandalous extravagance?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-If it were not for the melodramatic rhetoric of the last part of the honourable senator’s question I would have to draw attention to the fact that that kind of question should be put on notice. It is seeking information that no Minister would have available. I will seek the information regarding the arrangements for the simulator training; I will seek the information as to whether it is located in Hong Kong and how many Service people have travelled there. I could not know all of that, and I must be able to obtain such information. As to the claim that this is a scandalous waste of money, I point out that the purchase of those two aircraft was as a result of the highest intelligence reports that could be given to any government. The fact of the matter is that the best security and intelligence advice available to this Government and to governments overseas is that if a national leader were to continue to travel on commercial aircraft- this applies, both in Australia and overseas- there would be likely to be an enormous risk to the lives of innocent passengers travelling on those aircraft. I stress that that is the advice given to us by the security people of Australia and the advice given to other countries. Apparently the Labor Party is willing to do two things- to be selective as regards the chartering of Boeing aircraft to take Mr Whitlam to look at the ruins in Greece -

Senator Keeffe:

– I rise to order. Mr President, I have to remind you again of your previous rulings. The Minister is scandalously taking up the period of Question Time allocated to members of this chamber. I again request you to repeat your previous ruling to him.

The PRESIDENT:

– No. I ask Senator Carrick to continue.

Senator CARRICK:

-I want to point out that the Labor Party has a very selective judgment on this. It was eager that Mr Whitlam should view the ruins of ancient Greece by using a chartered Boeing aircraft which he could cart around the world on his record world travels, but it does not mind the threatening of the lives of innocent people caused by national leaders travelling on commercial airlines.

Equally, I remind the Senate and the public that 80 per cent of the flying time of these aircraft is used for normal defence transport purposes, carrying troops and carrying refugees. So there is no scandalous expenditure. The training of the pilots involved would be training for the normal defence requirements of a transport aircraft and, indeed, for carrying troops and refugees. But presumably the Labor Party does not want that training to take place.

page 2771

QUESTION

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION ACT: BREACHES

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Yesterday the AttorneyGeneral was unable to answer a question from Senator Evans which sought the AttorneyGeneral’s saying which Minister is responsible for initiating proceedings in the case of a contravention of the Broadcasting and Television Act. The Attorney-General avoided answering by claiming that the matter of contravention of this Act was hypothetical. However, this morning on the program AM, in answer to a question about possible contraventions of the Act by Mr Murdoch, Mr Staley said:

  1. . certainly at that stage that it was not proper for me to in fact take any prosecution action. 1 ask the Attorney: Is this statement by Mr Staley then finally confirmation from the Government that it is indeed the responsibility of the Post and Telecommunications Minister to initiate proceedings where there has been a contravention of the Broadcasting and Television Act?
Senator DURACK:
LP

-Yesterday I said two things: First, that at this stage the matter is in the investigation stage. I will look at the transcript of what Mr Staley said to see whether there was any difference between what he said and what I said in any answers I gave yesterday.

Senator Button:

– You had better have a look at what you said too.

Senator DURACK:

-I was not on AM this morning, Senator Button.

Senator Button:

– If inconsistency is the criterion.

Senator DURACK:

– I have a fair recollection of what I said yesterday, Senator Button. I think the honourable senator is probably giving me good legal advice for once, that I should look at what I said as well. I probably will do so. But I made the point that that was at the investigation stage. I was saying yesterday that the question of whether a prosecution would be launched at any stage was a hypothetical one. Although the Minister for Post and Telecommunications administers the Act, I have no doubt that there would be, as there has already been, consultations between the Minister and me in relation to the matter. But the question of who makes a decision to prosecute under the Act is a hypothetical one at this stage.

page 2772

QUESTION

WHALING

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Yesterday Senator Puplick asked me a question concerning the Canadian Government’s policy with regard to commercial whaling. The Minister for Science and the Environment has provided the following response:

The Minister has asked Professor J. D. Ovington, the Australian Commissioner to the International Whaling Commission, to seek advice from the Canadian Commissioner at the July meeting of the Commission on the Canadian Government’s policy with regard to commercial whaling.

At the International Whaling Commission, the Australian Commissioner will continue to pursue the Australian policy of a world-wide ban on whaling.

page 2772

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Carrick.

Leave granted.

Senator WALSH:

– During Question Time today Senator Carrick, I believe, stated that Mr Laurie Power was a public servant and was not employed in a political role and that, therefore, Mr Laurie Power did not write Senator Carrick ‘s Press statements. I have here a Press statement dated 11 February 1980 which reads: ‘By the Minister for National Development and Energy’. Appended to the Press statement is a note with the words: ‘Inquiries: Laurie Power’. It gives a work telephone number and a home telephone number. Whilst that does not necessarily prove that Mr Power wrote the Press statement, it certainly implies that Mr Power did write the Press statement. I think it was very reasonable for me to draw the conclusion that he wrote it since his name is appended to it.

As to the subject matter of the statement, I point out that it states:

He -

That is, Mr Keating- went on to reveal that Labor’s proposed Resources Tax would yield more revenue than the existing levy.

Mr Keating has shown that petrol under Labor would be dearer, not cheaper.

That also, I submit, justifies the other comments I made about the substance of the Press statement.

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

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Leave granted.

Senator CARRICK:

– I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not employ a Press officer. Although as a senior Minister I have the capacity and establishment to have one, I do not employ one. It is my normal situation to do one of two things- either to write my own Press statements or when they deal with routine, factual matters to accept the basic factual statements of the Department. When a statement comes out in my name it can be taken as such. Mr Power operates as a co-ordination officer for New South Wales under Government direction. He is a public servant. He is not employed by me.

Senator Button:

– The propaganda department of the Fraser Government.

Senator CARRICK:

– There is an interjection about the propaganda department. It ill becomes Labor Party supporters to talk about that when one thinks of their huge institutions and, of course, of Mr Wran’s enormous Taj Mahal of today. Let me put the record straight: What that statement simply says is that if there are further inquiries they should be directed to the officer who no doubt would contact me.

page 2772

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2772

QUESTION

POST BOXES

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

-Mr President, on 1 5 May, Senator Archer asked me as the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications a question concerning procedures for the provision and withdrawal of street posting boxes. The reply which I now have expands on the answer which I gave at the time, and I seek leave to incorporate it in the Hansard.

Leave granted.

Australia Post policy for the provision of street posting boxes takes account of: the average number of letters expected to be posted the number of residents who may use the box the location of other posting facilities in the area and the cost of providing and maintaining the box.

Australia Post policy for the withdrawal of posting boxes is that consideration may be given, after review, to withdrawing a posting box in which, on average, less than 30 letters a day are posted.

A posting box may be relocated at a more strategic position if it is considered that such a move would be more convenient for the community generally.

A review of existing posting box facilities has indicated that in many localities, especially in residential areas, little use is being made of posting boxes already provided. Rationalisation in some areas has resulted in a number of posting boxes being withdrawn.

In implementing this policy. Australia Post does give consideration to the convenience of its customers.

There are already a number of appeal procedures open to the public. Any member of the public who may be dissatisfied with a particular decision by Australia Post may seek a review by writing to Australia Post management at the local level, to the Australian Postal Commission itself, or, in appropriate cases, to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. In each case sympathetic consideration is given to the views put forward.

In addition to these processes the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman provides an avenue of appeal against decisions of this nature made by Australia Post.

Postal and Telecommunications Department

Canberra 21 May 1980

page 2773

QUESTION

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION ACT: PECUNIARY INTEREST PROVISIONS

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-On 20 May Senator Wriedt asked me a question about the pecuniary interest provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act in relation to the employment of the wife of the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Mr Staley has now given me a response to the question and I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

A similar Question to the one asked by the Honourable Senator was addressed to the Minister in another place on Tuesday last.

In response to that Question the Minister indicated that his advice was that any involvement or interest which Mr Gyngell ‘s wife might have had in other organisations did not, in fact, put him in breach of the pecuniary interest provisions which applied to him.

It is clear that, notwithstanding any official legal position, people in positions such as those occupied by the Chairman of the Tribunal must always exercise great caution in matters which could be regarded as putting them in breach of provisions in that general area.

The position with respect to Mr Gyngell was that any involvement his wife had did not, as the Minister is advised, put him in breach of the provisions.

page 2773

QUESTION

UNITED STATES-JAPAN AGREEMENT ON JOINT RESEARCH

Senator CHANEY:
LP

- Senator Bonner asked me a question on 2 1 May about the United StatesJapan Science and Technology Agreement and about the availability of material which may flow from the signing of that agreement. I have a reply which has been provided by the Minister for Science and the Environment and I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Answer: The Minister for Science and the Environment assumes that the agreement referred to is the United StatesJapan Science and Technology Agreement which was signed on 1 May this year.

Under Article V of this agreement ‘scientific and technological information of a non-proprietary nature arising from the co-operative activities under this agreement may be made available to the public by either government through customary channels and in accordance with the normal procedures of the participating agencies. ‘

In effect, this means that results of non-proprietary research under the agreement will be made generally available by secretariats of relevant agencies in either country or in scientific and technological publications. In addition we would expect that Australian scientists and technologists, through existing and proposed bi-lateral links with US and Japanese authorities for information exchange, will obtain timely advice of results of particular interest. In the field of hazardous chemicals the OECD- to which all these countries belong- has established and is further developing procedures for regular exchange of information.

page 2773

QUESTION

HALLETT COVE OIL REFINERY

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-On 19 March Senator Young asked a question relating to industrial relations and the Seamen’s Union of Australia. I have a reply which has been provided by Mr Street and I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

The Petroleum Refineries (Australia) Pty Ltd (PRA) refinery at Port Stanvac was closed down from 12 March 1980 to 16 March 1 980 following the refusal of the Seamen’s Union of Australia to allow the tanker ‘Philippine Star’ to berth on 27 February 1 980. As a result of the ban, the vessel was unable to discharge her cargo of about 800,000 barrels of Middle East crude and the refinery was forced to commence close-down operations on II March 1980 when supplies of crude feed stock ran out. The bans were lifted on 14 March. The refinery took two days to recommence its refining operations and it was a further week or so before the facility had regained full production.

Another tanker, the ‘Mobil Brilliant’ arrived at Port Stanvac on 3 March 1980 carrying 500,000 barrels of Middle East crude but this cargo could not be discharged until the

Philippine Star’ had unloaded and departed from the loading berth. The ‘Mobil Brilliant’ eventually unloaded on 22 March 1980.

The Seamen’s Union of Australia (SUA), in company with the Merchant Service Guild and the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers, had been imposing bans on selected foreign flag tankers for some years in support of claims for the employment of more Australian flag vessels manned by Australian crews in the carriage of foreign crude oil to Australia. The campaign was reactivated by the Unions in the last quarter of 1 979.

I would point out that a feature of the maritime unions’ campaign, not only at Port Stanvac but also at Kurnell and Kwinana, was their tendency to maintain bans on tankers until stocks of crude feed stock at the refineries were almost exhausted- the bans would then be lifted. Such a set of circumstances arose at the PRA refinery on more than one occasion, but, during the period referred to, the continuation of SUA bans necessitated the complete closure of the Port Stanvac refinery.

About mid-March, the maritime unions decided to discontinue their campaign against foreign tankers as a result of assurances given by oil companies that additional tankers, carrying the Australian flag and manned by Australian crew, would be secured for the purpose of importing foreign crude into Australia.

In recent times Caltex, Shell, BP, Mobil and Ampol have been involved in negotiations with the unions concerning manning levels and other conditions of employment relating to the introduction of the new tankers into our overseas oil trade.

The Government remains firm in its policy applying to the use of Australian flag ships in overseas trade that Australian flag participation is to be encouraged, provided it can be obtained on a commercially negotiated basis without additional cost to taxpayer or consumer.

page 2774

QUESTION

AIR NIUGINI

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-On 20 May Senator Sibraa asked me a question concerning a reported bid by Ansett Transport Industries Ltd to purchase Air Niugini. I stress in putting this answer forward that it is answered from the point of view of the Department of Transport and the Minister for Transport to whom the question was directed. It does not touch on any foreign policy aspects of the sort raised in subsequent questioning. I seek leave to incorporate that answer in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Senator Sibraa:

asked me on 20 May whether I would call for inquiries into the competence of departmental advisers and into allegations that Ansett Transport Industries had deliberately acted against the best interests of Air Niugini.

The first matter arose from my advice to the Senate on 1 6 May that nothing was known of any move by Ansett Transport Industries to purchase Air Niugini. There were subsequent media reports that such a move had been made.

My knowledge of the matter comes only from media reports. Nothing of relevance has been communicated to the Minister for Transport or his Department by either the PNG Government or Ansett Transport Industries. Nor is there any obligation on either of those parties to inform the Australian

Government of something that is not of direct concern to Australia.

Whether Ansett Transport Industries, as a minority shareholder in Air Niugini, has acted against the best interests of the latter is a matter for the Papua New Guinea Government to consider.

It should be borne in mind that there have been recent industrial disputes involving Air Niugini, dismissals or suspensions of senior management staff have occurred, and in at least one instance legal proceedings have been instituted within Papua New Guinea.

In the circumstances I would not propose to comment on media reports. Should any relevant matters be raised with the Government by the Papua New Guinea Government they would of course receive close consideration.

page 2774

QUESTION

SHINGLEY HILL: TELEVISION TRANSLATOR

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-Senator Colston almost asked me a question today. In deference to his wish to get the matter on the record, I seek leave to incorporate the question and answer in Hansard.

Senator Wriedt:

– What is it about?

Senator CHANEY:

– It is a particular factual question which the honourable senator asked me to get information on. I have the information and I would like to incorporate it in Hansard for him.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Was a position on Shingley Hill in Central Queensland chosen as the site for a television translator in 1 975.

Has equipment for this translator now been in store in Mackay for some years.

If so, why has the Government not yet taken action to install the translator and give the citizens in this area adequate television reception.

Answer:

A site has been chosen for the television translator station.

Translator and aerial are in store. The lattice tower has been diverted for other urgent radiocommunication use. A decision is yet to be reached as to whether, for aesthetic reasons, a slimline tower should now be substituted. If so, then different aerials will have to be procured as well as the slimline tower. If a lattice mast is finally agreed on it is anticipated that one could be diverted for use when required from another project.

The question of access to the site has remained unresolved with the result that the project has inevitably been delayed.

Negotiations with the owners of the selected site (Two World Holiday Pty Ltd) have been protracted and in fact the most recent meeting between that company and the Department of Administrative Services has been held in the past few days.

I have been advised that the parties have agreed on all but two points.

The main point of contention is the standard of road access. Two World Holiday Pty Ltd still require the building of a superior road to that proposed. The Department of Administrative Services are liaising with the Department of Construction on the cost of this road so as to establish its estimated cost as soon as possible.

Two World Holiday believe that if the Department will accede to the request for a higher grade road then the council will in turn accede to the requests for dedication of the site.

The Honourable Member for Dawson has expressed a consistent interest in this matter and has indicated his willingness to do what he can to assure agreement between the parties on the matter so as to enable those residents in the area to receive improved reception.

page 2775

OIL PRICING POLICY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

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

The economic consequences of the Government’s oil pricing policies.

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

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

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– When Malcolm Fraser became Prime Minister the cost of super grade petrol at the bowser was 13c a litre. It is now between 32c and 34c a litre. Almost all of that 150 per cent increase in price is due to the oil taxing policies of the Fraser Government. The Fraser Government has added $ 1 5 to the cost of a tank full of petrol for an Australian-made 6-cylinder car. Every time a Holden or a Ford is filled with petrol an extra $15 in tax is paid to the Fraser Government. The present position is that Australian oil is priced to refiners at $24.70 a barrel. That $24.70 is distributed in this way: It costs something less than $2 a barrel actually to produce the oil, which includes amortisation of capital. These are average figures. Australian producers on average receive just over $6 a barrel. The difference between that $6 and the $24.70-$ 18.70 a barrel- is Government taxes: almost all of it is Fraser Government taxes. The Fraser Government’s oil tax is currently producing revenue at the rate of $3 billion, or$3,000m, a year.

That massive indirect tax is superimposed on the highest ever level of income tax imposed on the Australian people in peacetime. Mr Fraser, who promised to end the great tax rip-off, now presides over the highest levels of income tax ever imposed, in addition to this massive $3,000m a year indirect tax which is equivalent on average to a 1 6 per cent increase in personal taxation. For a person on average weekly earnings, a tank full of petrol a week is equivalent to 30 per cent increase in income tax. So much for the ending of the great tax rip-off. This policy is directly responsible for inflation, which again is back in double figures and going up still. It has added directly 4.5 per cent to the consumer price index in the last two years. When all the indirect effects are added, it has probably increased the consumer price index by 8 per cent. It is the direct cause of inflation being again in double figures and rising.

It is interesting to note that the annual rate of inflation now is just 3 per cent below what it was at the end of 1975. It has come down from just over 13 per cent to just over 10 percent. We were given dire warnings of catastrophe by all the Ministers of this Government and by all their back benchers in 1975. They said that that situation was absolutely catastrophic and that Australia could not live with inflation approaching those levels. They now preside over an almost comparable, almost equal, rate of inflation; it is still going up instead of coming down, as it was in 1975. The reason for that, the direct cause of that, is the Fraser Government’s oil taxing policies. They are the indirect cause of interest rates being at record levels. Government interest rates are the highest they have ever been. So much for Mr Fraser’s assurance, his solemn promise in November 1977, that interest rates would fall by 2 percent over the next 12 months. It is a target that can and will be met’, said Mr Fraser. Interest rates are now 2 1/2 per cent higher than they were when Mr Fraser gave that solemn promise that they would fall by 2 per cent. They have not come down by 2 per cent, they have gone up by 2lh per cent, and the major cause of that increase is the Government’s oil pricing policy.

Unemployment remains at record levels. It is now statistically acceptable to seasonally adjust Australian Bureau of Statistics monthly employment figures and on a seasonally adjusted basis unemployment too is again rising. It had stabilised at record levels; it is now going up. That also is an indirect effect of the Government’s oil pricing policy.

The economic recovery that clearly was in the pipeline in 1 978, and which Mr Hayden among others detected at the time, has been aborted by this oil taxing policy. The burdens it has imposed are also distributed very inequitably. The people who suffer most from this Fraser Government policy are lower income country families. The most recent survey of household expenditure shows that these people spend almost 10 per cent of their income on petrol and oil. The average for all households is 3 per cent, and the average for the higher income groups is 2 per cent. So the Fraser Government has decided to impose this burden on probably the most disadvantaged people in Australia, short of the Aborigines, and many of them come into this category anyway. The Fraser Government has singled out members of lower income rural households for a punishing tax which hits them proportionately three times as hard as it does the average household. Of course, the originators of this policy, the architects, were ironically the National Country Party, and especially Mr Anthony, who claim to represent the interests of these people. Mr Anthony, of course, is more interested in the kickbacks they can get from Esso-BHP on the Fortescue oil field than he is in protecting the interests or compensating -

Senator Carrick:

- Mr President, I take very strong objection to that statement.

Senator WALSH:

– What statement?

The PRESIDENT:

– The statement about the Minister for Trade and Resources, Mr Anthony taking kickbacks.

Senator WALSH:

-No, I did not say that Mr Anthony was taking kickbacks, I said that the Country Party was getting kickbacks.

Senator Carrick:

– I ask it to be recorded in Hansard that it has been said that Mr Anthony is interested in taking kickbacks from Esso. That is a reflection upon the integrity of the Minister.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, I was also listening carefully to Senator Walsh. It was quite obvious that he was not making a personal reference to Mr Anthony. He was speaking of Mr Anthony in the sense of the earlier part of his comment, that is, that the Country Party, which allegedly is here, to represent the rural people, through people like Mr Anthony, allows those people to pay three times as much as the average for their petrol. That is the point Senator Walsh was making. It was not a personal attack on or a personal reference to Mr Anthony. His name was mentioned in the context of debate only, and I think your ruling should keep that in mind, Mr President.

Senator Carrick:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. It would be a gross reflection upon the members of the National Country Party in this place to allege that they, including Mr Anthony or excluding him, got kickbacks from Esso. I reject that statement and I believe that it is a serious breach of Standing Orders.

Senator McLaren:

– I rise to the point of order, Mr President. I have had to rise to this same point of order before when Senator Carrick gets up and makes the sorts of claims that he has made. Senator Carrick is on record many, many times when he was in the Opposition of deliberately accusing members of the Whitlam Government of being corrupt, deceitful and dishonest. Yet he has the hide to get up here today and again want to prevent members on this side from using terms which are nowhere near as strenuous as those which he used. He has double standards. He applies those double standards in this place at every opportunity he gets. Mr President, you cannot rule, in my view, in favour of the point of order raised by Senator Carrick. If you do you are condoning what he did whilst he was in Opposition. You are not allowing us to say much the same things he said even though what we say is not as vicious.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have heard sufficient argument relating to this alleged breach of the Standing Orders. Whilst it has been pointed out by Senator Wriedt that the words used by Senator Walsh could not refer to a member of Parliament specifically, in the context of what he was saying I took the inference to be a personal reflection. I think it is only reasonable and fair to rule that there are indications of a personal reflection that should be withdrawn. Senator Walsh, I ask you to withdraw that very gross reflection.

Senator WALSH:

– I withdraw. I have a lot more damaging charges to lay against the Government than that one anyway. The Government’s record is one of economic vandalism. It has a record of high income tax, high interest rates and record unemployment which is still going up. It has made an abortion of the economic recovery that was in the pipeline two years ago.

The excuse for that economic vandalism rests on two propositions. The first proposition is that it is necessary to encourage exploration and the second is that it is a conservation measure. With regard to the first proposition the truth, of course, is that import parity pricing for new oil discoveries has applied ever since it was announced by the Whitlam Government in September 1975. There is a bipartisan policy on the pricing of oil from newly discovered fields. So that is irrelevant. The second excuse for this economic vandalism is that the high price being charged is a conservation measure. Of course, it would be foolish to argue that there is not some inverse correlation between price and consumption. Immense price increases will have some effect on consumption, at least in the long term. The point, however, is that we have long since passed that stage where further increases in price, where the miniscule gains in terms of reduced consumption flowing from further increases in price, are offset by the enormous damage to the whole economy which is caused by the inflation which flows from those further increases in price. The miniscule gains are far more than offset by the economic damage.

It is for that reason that the Labor Party proposes to have a freeze on Australian crude oil prices for 12 months. Thereafter prices will be increased by the increase in the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries prices or the Australian consumer price index, whichever is the lesser. If we are seriously interested in conserving fuel there are far more effective ways of going about it than doubling the price of petrol. More attention should be paid to public transport in the urban centres, smaller engines in cars and lower speed limits to mention just a few. These would have a far greater effect on petrol consumption than the 150 per cent increase in prices which this Government has thrust upon the motorist in the last two and a half years. Incidentally, in the United States of America which has not experienced nearly the same increase as Australia has experienced, petrol consumption fell for the first three and a half months of this year by 10 per cent. In Australia it has fallen by less than 2 per cent. A major factor in that fall is, very likely, the disruption to fuel supplies caused by industrial troubles in refining and distribution. It remains to be seen whether there has been a recordable decrease in consumption in Australia at all. In the United States petrol consumption has gone down by 10 per cent mostly for other reasons.

As the public perceives the realities of the Government’s petrol taxing policy and the superiority of the Labor Party’s proposition the Government responds with two variants of the Goebbels technique. The first variant is that it says that Labor will impose a resources rent tax and, therefore, the price of petrol will be even higher. I will deal with that matter at a later stage. The other variant of the Goebbels technique is to launch, at public expense, an enormous propaganda campaign designed to brainwash the public. For example, the Government is distributing at public expense to schools in South Australia, and probably by now in other places, a propaganda document which purports to tell the facts about the Government’s oil pricing policy.

Senator Carrick:

- Mr President, I ask that the document be tabled.

Senator WALSH:

– I certainly will table the document. The first paragraph of that document states:

The Government’s policy on petrol pricing aims to ensure that all Australians have an adequate supply of petrol and other forms of energy both now and in the years ahead.

That clearly implies that this policy is necessary to encourage oil exploration. Of course it is not necessary. Import parity pricing for new discoveries has applied since 1975 and not one cent of that S3 billion crude oil tax a year is being used to finance exploration. If the Government were serious about exploration it would reserve at least a portion of that $3,000m a year for direct expenditure on exploration. On page 2, under the heading ‘Third Cheapest in the World ‘, the document states:

The Government’s oil pricing policies are doing all these things while providing petrol to the motorist at the third cheapest price in the world.

That third cheapest price in the world is about one half of the price in Europe or Japan. We have heard that misrepresentation from Senator Carrick many times in this place, and we have heard it from the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). As recently as last week we read about the Prime Minister claiming that Australia had the second cheapest petrol in the world- not the Western world, not oil importing countries, but the Government asserts, Australia has the third cheapest petrol in the world. I have a list of some of the countries that sell petrol at a price cheaper than Australia.

The PRESIDENT:

-Would the honourable senator seek leave to table the paper?

Senator WALSH:

– I seek leave to table the paper. Senator Carrick asked that it be tabled, so I table it.

Leave granted.

Senator WALSH:

– The paper and the Government assert that Australia has the third cheapest petrol in the world. When Senator Carrick made these statements in March- when I think that paper was prepared- at the exchange rates prevailing on 1 March, converted into Australian dollars, retail petrol prices for super petrol in some countries were as follows: In Australia it was 32c or 34c a litre depending upon whether it was bought at a discount or at a standard price. In Bahrain it was 1 4.2c a litre; in Canada, 21c a litre; in Indonesia, 13c a litre; in Kuwait, 8c a litre; in Mexico, 16c a litre; in Nigeria, 26c a litre. In the Philippines it was 22.75c a litre; even the Philippines was selling petrol at 75 per cent of the price in Australia. In Saudi Arabia it was 3.46c a litre. In Singaporetiny Singapore which imports all its oil- the price was 32c a litre, the same price as in Australia. In Venezuela it was 7.4c a litre, and in the United

States 30c a litre. That list is not an exhaustive one.

Another example of the Government’s attempt to seduce the electorate of course, was the scandalous advertising campaign that it ran in literally hundreds of newspapers throughout Australia to inform the public that as from 1 April the Government would be increasing the subsidy paid for the freight on petroleum products. At the Estimate committee hearings the Government told us that $ 1 7,000 was spent on that advertising campaign- a scandalous misuse of public funds for Liberal Party political propaganda purposes. In answer to a question on notice yesterday I was informed, in fact, that it was $21,000. When asked what was the reason for the advertisements, the Government said:

The purpose of the advertisements was to publicise the extension of the Petroleum Products Freight Subsidy Scheme, which came into effect on 1 April 1 980.

The point is that the public does not have to apply for that subsidy; it is paid automatically. That was a purely political exercise, a scandalous misuse of public money by the Government to try to get itself off the political hook on which its oil pricing policy has impaled it.

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

– The matter of public importance is alleged to be the economic consequences of the Government’s oil pricing policies. The test of the economic consequences of any oil pricing policy in a constructive way is twofold. Is it capable of providing over the years and decades ahead a sufficiency of petroleum products and other energy products for the people of Australia, not only at its present volume but also to allow for the great national development that will happen in Australia? Secondly, would it do so at a price which would be competitive with those of the trading nations of the world? The real test of the oil policies of a government is whether they are conducive to providing us with the oil that we need and whether it will be provided at a price that is competitive.

Let me deal with the latter statement. It has been alleged that we made a misstatement. We became a little old fashioned, having heard the Australian Labor Party’s comments, and we asked the countries concerned about their prices. The confirmation by the Singapore High Commission is that petrol prices have been shown to have increased from approximately 32c per litre- probably at the 1979 price- to 41c per litre today, which is, of course, something like 8c above the cost in Australia. The Singapore High Commission has completely refuted the figures that the Labor Party is putting out. Let us get a little more juicy on this. Petrol prices in the Philippines are shown as having increased from 22c per litre to about 36c per litre in March. The Philippines Embassy, however, informed us today that in January 1980 the petrol price in the Philippines was about 54c per litre.

Senator Teague:

– It has more than doubled.

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes, going on to double. Senator Walsh is accusing us because we did not take note of the fact that the members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countriesthe oil producers- were in fact selling at a price below that of Australia. One would have thought that that would have been an insult to intelligence in argument. In fact, as the world knows, the members of the OPEC are saying now that it is in their interest to raise the prices at home to import parity prices.

Senator Walsh:

– Tell us about Syria.

Senator CARRICK:

– As the dollies go over, there is no argument left. What nonsense it is to include in this tatter of a list the oil producing countries- Bahrein, Indonesia, Kuwait, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Of course, we admitted that Canada was in fact cheaper than us, but for only one reason. The Minister for Energy told me in Canada a few weeks ago that Canada would raise the price except that it has a real problem in Alberta. The fact of the matter is that, leaving aside the members of OPEC, Australia today, under our import parity priceing, is producing the second cheapest petrol as such. We are right in saying that it is less than half the price in France, which is 72c per litre, and Italy, which is 71c per litre, and that it is about half the price in Japan, which is 66c per litre. The fundamental test is: Are we producing it in sufficient volume and are we producing it competitively against the rest of the world because energy will be the test? I seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Maunsell)- Is leave granted.

Senator Walsh:

– I want to look at it first.

Senator CARRICK:

-I am very happy to let the honourable senator look at the document. I only wish that those on the other side of the House would reciprocate in similar circumstances. Having said that, I come to the fundamental question that the Australian Labor Party put namely, whether the people of Australia knew that the excise duty on oil was yielding some $3,000m to the government coffers? The Labor Party thought it horrendous that that massive amount of money should be taken by way of taxation. However, we have it on firm record that the Labor Party spokesman on energy, Mr Keating, has admitted that the resource tax that a Labor government would apply would almost certainly yield more than our excise duty. The Labor Party has a policy which would take more tax than we are; yet it raises this matter of public importance today. Senator Walsh talked with a sob in his throat about the Government taxing the people. Let us look at Mr Keating ‘s favourite expression that every petrol pump is a branch of the Taxation Office. A writer for the Sydney Morning Herald, Mr Gittins, spoke to Mr Keating about his policy. He said:

That sounds to me as if a resources tax is just a different version of ‘ a branch of the tax office at every petrol pump ‘.

What did Mr Keating say? It is on record that he said:

Well it is to some extent.

It is on record that a Labor Government would raise more money in tax and that, in fact, the petrol bowser would be a taxing office. Down go the dollies about the prices of countries overseas. Let me state quite clearly what ought to be the tests of a good oil, petroleum or energy policy. It ought to have four ingredients. The world is running short of oil. It is consuming 22 billion barrels a year and only finding 18 billion. Australia is producing from its Bass Strait and Barrow Island wells about 67 per cent of what it needs today. Unless we find more or develop alternatives, by 1985 we will produce 55 per cent; by 1990, something like 35 per cent, and by the year 2000, 10 to 20 per cent.

The idea that we can waste oil and hope for the best in the future is the corruption of an idea that the Labor Party is putting forward. The fact is that, if we are to have a sufficiency of oil tomorrow, we have to work for it today. We have to put it into position. It is no good saying that we have 67 per cent now. We will not have it in five years time. Indeed, had the Liberal Government not come into office the reserves in the Bass Strait would have fallen. By our policies we have extended the reserves by some three years. Without our policies the disaster area would be 1 982 instead of 1985. Our policies are working. Any decent policy must conserve what we have because the world outside is perilous. No one can say that tomorrow we will be able to get our supplies from the Middle East or elsewhere. Events in Afghanistan and Iran have destabilised the world, so we must conserve. We must switch from oil to alternatives such as coal, gas and electricity. We must get exploration going and above everything else we must stimulate the development of alternative fuels.

It is clear- it has been said by all the nations around the world- that the price rises established by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries will go on and on and the world, including Australia, will be held to ransom until synthetic fuels come on the market in volume and at prices that will compete with OPEC prices. Let me repeat that in simple terms. Until we can get the Rundle shale oils and the coal liquefactions coming forward at prices that will compete with OPEC prices, OPEC will hold the world to ransom. The test to be applied is: What kind of policies will turn Rundle oil shale into oil and what kind of policies will turn brown or black coal into liquid fuel? The Rundle partners have said one thing emphatically. There will be no Rundle shale oil unless there is import parity pricing. The Labor Party is opposed to import parity pricing. It follows therefore that under the Labor Party there would be no shale oil alternatives in Australia. There would be no development of alternative fuels. The only weapon we have to restrain OPEC, the only weapon we have to stop the rise in prices, the only weapon we have to get more fuel would be gone under Labor Party policies. I repeat, the only way that we will stop the OPEC jacking up of prices year by year is to bring on alternative fuels and to find more, of course.

We are doing so in Australia where we have the start of the greatest synthetic fuel enterprise in the world. It is a project of enormous importance. It is a project that in eight years’ time will yield about 240,000 barrels a day, which is equal to the total we import day by day from the Middle East. So here we are waterproofing ourselves against the threat of the Middle East, and here is a party coming forward with a policy which would sabotage that project, because only an import parity price, only the knowledge that they are to compete with the scarcity value of oil in the world will bring the Rundles and the oil shales on. If we want a coal liquefaction plant, we are talking of $3 billion to $4 billion for 100,000 barrels. If we want a Rundle project, we are talking of $8 billion to $ 10 billion.

But let us test these things. We must conserve. That is the first thing. We must show the people that it is necessary to save petrol. The world knows that we are conserving. The use of gasolene in Australia is falling in a very significant way. The world knows that the people of Australia are switching to smaller fuel effective cars. Honourable senators ought to know that the Chamber of Automotive Industries has agreed to develop engines which will reduce the consumption of petrol. It has advised me that, whereas today an average car uses 1 1.2 litres per hundred kilometres, by 1983 it will use 9 litres, and by 1987, prospectively, 8 litres. That is a huge gain in conservation.

The liquefied petroleum gas policies that we put into effect recently encouraging its total use for the automotive industry will displace the use of gasolene by 14 per cent. Yet who mocked and knocked and tried to destroy this LPG policy? The Labor Party wanted to white ant the conservation policies for Australia. But the conservation policies are going on. In the alternative, it is clear. In Sydney alone last year the switch from fuel oil to gas and electricity saved two million barrels of oil. Every day a new industry switches from fuel oil to an alternative fuel. We have the pipeline development to Canberra, the pipeline development from Young to Wagga to Albury, the Lithgow-Bathurst-Orange prospective pipelines and the Sydney-Newcastle pipeline. All of them are saving oil, all of them are saving LPG, and all of them are being criticised. Conservation is going on and alternative use of fuels is going on.

I come to the third factor and that is the need for exploration in Australia. Exploration and development in Australia are at record levels today. Under the Labor Party, oil development virtually came to a halt. As a project the North West Shelf was wiped off the slate. Indeed, Hansard is full of evidence that Labor policies brought exploration and development to a virtual halt, and made it impossible for the North West Shelf project to go forward.

Today we have exploration and development. If Labor were to be given the opportunity to apply a resource rent tax at the profits level of the oil companies and the profitability of the oil companies were removed from them, they would have only one recourse. They would say ‘ Why do I have to drill in Australia or to explore in Australia, the country of greatest risk in the world? I will take my money, I will take my oil rigs and go away’, as they did in 1974 and 1975. Here is the alternative situation. As for synthetic fuels, we have a clear situation. Rundle has said that it will go forward only if import parity pricing is in position. There are four tests. What did members of the Australian Labor Party do? In relation to the conservation of petrol they have said: ‘In our first year of office we will freeze the price of petrol. Come in spinner. We will inveigle you in an election year’. The Australian Labor Party is therefore urging the greater use of fuel. Every litre of fuel that is used because of this encouragement will have to be bought at higher than import parity prices on the spot market. Every time members of the Labor Party say: ‘We will freeze the price of petrol. Use more; buy more ‘, it is putting Australians in peril in the Middle East. Let nobody doubt that. The claim by the Australian Labor Party that it would freeze the price of petrol is absolute humbug.

Some four years ago the people of Australia said: ‘The inflation policies of the Labor Party have costed us out of world markets. We cannot trade any more. Put the Fraser Government in office to rectify that situation’. That has happened. Australia is in a . better trading position now than it has been in over the past seven years because of the anti-inflationary policies adopted by this Government. We have the most unique opportunity in Australia to develop our great, God given resources. This applies particularly to minerals and energy. If only we can keep down inflation and keep down industrial unrest in Australia we will be able to do all these things. Today Australia has better prospects than it has ever had. The Government has an import parity pricing policy that virtually every country in the Western world believes is right. Indeed, the Middle East countries of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries believe it is right, and they are aiming towards the policy adopted by this Government. Only the Labor Party says this policy is wrong. The policies put forward by the Australian Labor Party would not conserve petrol. If implemented, they would waste petrol and would stop the switch to alternative fuels. This would dry up exploration and stop research into synthetic fuels. The Senate has been asked to adopt the economic policy of the Whitlam type that put Australia into ruin and out of the trading market. The oil policy of the Labor Party, on examination, is seen to be humbug and cant. In fact, it would cost more. Under a Labor government petrol would be dearer and scarcer. Under this Government, Australia has the second cheapest price for petrol of any of the countries with which we trade. This Government’s policy is successful. The dollies fell down a little earlier when reference was made to Singapore and the Philippines. The Government would be very interested to pursue that matter. The debate leaves the Labor Party in tatters. I move:

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Leader of the Government indicated earlier that he wished to incorporate certain material in Hansard. Is leave granted for that table to be incorporated?

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator Walsh:

– I am quite happy for that document to be incorporated in Hansard. I think it should be noted for the record that it has been doctored. The bottom has been torn off.

Senator Carrick:

– I object strongly to that. I ask that the remark be withdrawn.

Senator Walsh:

– It is a fact. The bottom has been torn off.

Senator Carrick:

– It is offensive to say that the document has been doctored. The figures shown on the table are the figures supplied to me. I will get them verified by the National Energy Office. The figures shown are the figures supplied to me. It so happens that the table had some scribbled annotations on the bottom of the page and I tore them off to give a clean copy. The table sets out the comparative prices of petrol in a number of countries. I ask that the imputation by Senator Walsh be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is an imputation -

Senator Walsh:

– It is also a fact, Mr President. Have a look yourself. The bottom has been torn off.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Walsh will not leave his seat.

Senator Walsh:

- Senator Carrick has admitted that there were some annotations scribbled on the bottom and that he tore them off.

The PRESIDENT:

– An imputation is inherent in what you said and objection has been taken to it.

Senator Georges:

– What is the imputation? What Senator Walsh said was the the document has been doctored. In other words, the bottom was cut off.

Senator Walters:

– That is not the meaning of doctored ‘. Look it up.

Senator Georges:

– It is in your mind, if I might say so. The bottom was cut off. A knife was used on it. It was doctored. In any case. I think honourable senators opposite are far too sensitive. Mr President, I do not think you should allow yourself to be led into making petty rulings in this place.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I will make the rulings in accordance with the procedures of the House.

Senator Georges:

– I suggest you should not be led into making petty rulings in this place, Mr President, otherwise we will establish precedents that will get us into constant disputation.

The PRESIDENT:

– The fact is that there has been a reflection of dishonesty, an imputation, which must be withdrawn. Senator Walsh, withdraw.

Senator Walsh:

- Senator Carrick has admitted that he tore the bottom off the document and that there were annotations scribbled on the bottom.

The PRESIDENT:

– The imputation conveyed in the use of the word ‘doctoring’ is that there was some dishonest motive. Withdraw, Senator Walsh.

Senator Walsh:

– No, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– You refuse to withdraw?

Senator Walsh:

– Yes.

Senator Carrick:

- Mr President, the last thing in the world I want is to get the Senate to the stage it is at because of the intractability of an honourable senator who is refusing to withdraw a remark. The fact of the matter- I want to make this clear- is that I wanted to incorporate a document in the record which showed the relative prices in a number of countries. It so happened that in the dozens of things that I do, I had scribbled a number of messages on the bottom of the document. What was provided was, in fact, exactly the table shown on the document. I am prepared to get that table certified by the National Energy Office. There was no scribbling on the original document at all. The last thing I want is to bring the Senate to this situation. I ask Senator Walsh, in the interests of the Senate, to withdraw.

Senator Walsh:

– Will Senator Carrick give us the piece of paper he tore off the bottom of the document and show us what the scribbled annotation was?

Senator Carrick:

– No, I threw it away.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Walsh, you are still maintaining the imputation.

Senator Carrick:

- Mr President, you can see that there is a compounding of the imputation. What is happening is that I have to prove my honesty to Senator Walsh. I do not believe that any honourable senator, including Senator Walsh, has to prove his integrity. If Senator Walsh rises in his place and makes a statement I, regardless of the degree of provocation, am willing to accept it as being a matter of integrity. I ask you, Mr President, to accept that the table is the table which my office provided showing the prices in the respective countries.

Senator Wriedt:

– I wish to comment briefly that I think this is the first occasion which I have experienced when a document has been incorporated in this chamber which, apparently, has been interfered with in some way. I have the document in my hand. It is quite obvious that something has been torn off the bottom of it and I do not think Senator Carrick is arguing about that. Mr President, I ask you to bear in mind that if you are to demand that Senator Walsh withdraw the statement that this is a doctored document henceforth, every time any other document is interfered with in some way, whether by it being torn or multilated in whatever fashion, you will find yourself in exactly the same position. I suggest that you consider that matter very carefully before you insist that Senator Walsh withdraw.

Senator Lewis:

– I seek leave to make a statement, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– No, the point of order must be ruled on. The fact is that on the one hand there has been a physical variation to a document. That is one side of the matter. On the other side is the imputation to which I object- the reflection cast on an honourable senator that he had some ulterior motive or a dishonest motive. There is an inference of a dishonest motive to say that something was ‘doctored’. It is that word which is offensive to honourable senators. Senator Walsh, I ask you again to withdraw.

Senator Walsh:

– I am quite willing to accept that the figures were prepared in Senator Carrick ‘s office -

The PRESIDENT:

– Do you withdraw your inferences of doctoring which implies a dishonest motive?

Senator Walsh:

– I withdraw the word ‘doctored’. However, I note for the record that Senator Carrick has admitted that the bottom of the document has been torn off, that there were some scribbled annotations- I think that was the term he used- on that document and that he will not produce them.

The PRESIDENT:

-The statement has been withdrawn. The motion before the Senate is: That the business of the day be called on’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2782

GUIDELINES FOR EDUCATION COMMISSION 1981

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Education on Guidelines for Education Commissions 1981.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-by leave- I move:

The guidelines brought down by the Government in respect of education expenditure for the year 1981 overall demonstrate the Government’s lack of concern for education and its consistent policy of downgrading education as an instrument for the betterment of the Australian population and particularly the young population of Australia. The guidelines are designed to give effect to this philosophy without stirring up more opposition than is necessary in the process. It indicates again a rather slick attempt to continue this process of attrition in relation to education expenditure. It is often said in this place, notably by Senator Carrick, that what the Government is concerned about in relation to education is not so much funding as quality. Quality does not cost anything except a lot of words from Senator Carrick, but many of the quality of opportunity facilities which the education system does and should provide require funding. That has been the role of the Commonwealth in relation to education expenditure.

I will deal, first of all, with the area of tertiary education. There are no obvious inititatives arising from the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training which was set up in 1976 and which reported in 1978. The Senate has been told for two years, in answers to questions about the education system, that we could not obtain answers to these matters because they were all being dealt with by the Williams Committee of Inquiry. When this Committee finally reported, half of its recommendations were referred to the Tertiary Education Commission for further consideration and the other half were just noted by the Government. If any initiatives had emerged or arisen from the Williams Committee of Inquiry they would have been trumpeted by the Government in its education guidelines for 1981. One suspects that the Williams Committee report on education and training is yet another report of the Fraser Government or of conservative governments destined for a quiet burial and one which will rank with the report of the Vernon Committee of Economic Inquiry of 1965 as one of the great dust-gathering reports of conservative governments.

The guidelines are silent on the decision of the Government to proceed with the building of the Defence Force Academy. It may, of course, be a college of the University of New South Wales and, if so, it can no longer be passed off merely as a defence item as it is having a direct impact on education expenditure. If one looks at the matter in another way, the Australian Maritime College is an item of education expenditure; it is not an item of transport expenditure, for example. Similarly, the Australian Defence Force Academy should and probably would be dealt with as an item of education expenditure. This is not being done, for obvious reasons. If it were dealt with as an item of education expenditure it would demonstrate more clearly the Government’s priorities in relation to education funding. It costs $33m a year to run a defence force academy. When one looks at the figures and the guidelines in respect of matters such as university research and so on, one can see very clearly where the Government’s priorities lie.

I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that on a number of occasions the Tertiary Education Commission has complained of the squeeze on funds for universities and colleges and particularly funds in respect of research in universities. Presumably, this squeeze will continue because recurrent funding is frozen for universities and colleges. So much for the

Government’s concern in relation to policies of science and technology, a matter that we have debated in this Senate on a number of occasions. It is very bad luck for medical research in Australia, which has suffered because of a particularly hard line on expenditure from the Government in recent years.

I note in the guidelines that $0.4m has been set aside in the tertiary education sector, for what is described as evaluative studies. There is no explanation of what ‘evaluative studies’ means in relation to tertiary education. The expression is there and $0.4m is to be spent on it. One would have hoped for some explanation of that, because did not the Williams Committee, which cost $750,000, make evaluative studies in relation to the education system? Does not the Tertiary Education Commission regularly evaluate tertiary education in Australia? What is meant by this new grant of $0.4m for evaluative studies? Perhaps some honourable senator on the Government side, which has the benefit of wisdom in relation to facts, if nothing else, might be able to help me with an explanation of what evaluative studies means in the context of a tertiary education budget and in the context of the Williams Committee of Inquiry, the Tertiary Education Commission and regular evaluations and reports. I assume that university and college academics will be very concerned to know what evaluative studies ‘ in relation to the tertiary education system means.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Whether they can get a slice of it.

Senator BUTTON:

-Sure. I take it that is meant to indicate vernality on behalf of academics which is not present in politicians on the Government side, Senator Baume. The question that I raise is a much more serious one. I take it that evaluative studies means that even under the Fraser Government evaluations would be made by somebody independent of the education sector. It is in respect of that matter that one seeks some enlightenment in the guidelines which prescribe an amount like that without any explanation. The guidelines should explain that expression. I indicate briefly that, as far as we are concerned, when a Labor government is elected we will spend a lot more money on increases in research funding in universities. We will do that not just for the reason suggested by Senator Baume ‘s interjection, but because the expenditure of research funds in universities, if properly applied, has very great relevance to the future of this country in terms of industrial development, the development of the manufacturing sector, in terms of technology and a whole range of disciplines which can become important in the context of the nature of the Australian economy as it ought to be and as it is likely to develop in the remaining years of this century.

We had arguments and discussions in the Senate about that question. But I indicate clearly that there is a need for increased research funding. That is not a comment which has come just from me in a partisan sense; it is a comment which has been made by people, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development examiners, the Tertiary Education Commission, the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training in Australia. The recommendations of all those bodies have been ignored by the Fraser Government in relation to that issue.

I think that we also have to argue that there is room for very sympathetic consideration of the tertiary sector in relation to capital expenditure on buildings and equipment. Again I would draw the attention of the Senate to the last report of the Tertiary Education Commission, which made the comment that what was happening in the tertiary sector of education was that there was a backlog of requirements building up in relation to capital expenditure. In essence the problems have been swept under the carpet for the time being by the present Government.

I want to deal now with the technical and further education sector, which was raised by Senator Lewis at Question Time today. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that in the education guidelines for 1981, expenditure on technical and further education buildings has been frozen, and one has only to look at these buildings in most States of Australia to see that they are old, obsolete and run down. There will be no increase in expenditure for capital equipment in the TAFE sector in 1 98 1 . It is a growing sector in terms of students and one about which the Government talks a lot- indeed, it attaches a great deal of importance to technical trainingbut no new assault will be made on the obsolete buildings as a matter of priority by the present Government as a result of these guidelines.

I again draw attention to the fact that the Government’s proudest boast in relation to educational expenditure has been in relation to the TAFE sector, and, that sector has been treated in a very parsiminious and shabby way in the guidelines which have been brought down. If, indeed, it is a sector which will train the new generations of technicians and skilled personnel for Australian industry, then it needs a little more sympathetic consideration than has been given in the guidelines announced. I again draw the Senate’s attention to the fact that the Williams Committee of Inquiry and the Government committee recommended a 10 per cent increase in recurrent expenditure for TAFE, and they recommended it as a matter of urgency. The Government has ignored that recommendation. The increase in the recurrent expenditure for TAFE in the guidelines is of the order of $2m. I have not worked that out as a percentage, but it is nothing like 10 per cent.

I turn now to what the guidelines say in relation to schools in Australia. In these guidelines the Government has again hidden behind the over-simplification that there will be a decline in school enrolments and that growth in the school sector in terms of the number of pupils is levelling off. That, of course, is a glib statement, made in ignorance or deliberately ignoring the fact that the Schools Commission has properly pointed out that the deficiency in capital needs in schools is getting greater and that there is an increased need for capital expenditure in the schools area. This is happening, of course, because we live in a country with a highly mobile population. It is a very glib sort of solution to say that the whole school population of Australia is not increasing and therefore there are no needs in terms of buildings and so on for schools. The Schools Commission has given examples of places like Gosford in New South Wales, which has a relatively soaring population rate, where schools are overcrowded, and where there are inadequate facilities in terms of school buildings because of population movements. It is not good enough to say that across the board there has been no increase in the school population. One has to look at the particular needs of particular areas and districts. The Gosford-Wyong area to which I referred and the Gold Coast are areas which have very demonstrable needs in terms of new buildings and new capital facilities. One cannot move schools from areas of declining population to new areas of development, whether it be in the areas I have mentioned orin the outer suburbs of the big cities of Sydney and Melbourne. Once again, the Government has taken a very parsimonious approach to the educational needs of Australian school children in the new areas and new suburbs of the cities.

No increase has been provided for in the disadvantaged schools program, which has been stationary now for four years. The Schools Commission has given particular emphasis to the program which in a very real way has done significant things for the deprived school children of

Australia in disadvantaged socio-economic areas. There are numerous examples about which any politician who is aware of the situation in his own electorate or in the electorates of big cities should be knowledgeable. The same is true in relation to these guidelines on the disadvantaged country areas program. I have raised this question again and again in the Senate. The Schools Commission recommended an expenditure of some $80m on the disadvantaged country areas program over a period. The Government has spent in that period $ 18m instead of $80m.

Again, this demonstrates the great concern of the National Country Party which has so much influence on this Government. In other ways it expresses the great concern about the education of children in country areas. One suspects that members of the National Country Party are very worried about education being improved in country areas because the more highly educated the population is the much less likely it is that people will vote for National Country Party members of Parliament. One can explain only in that way the lack of diligence on behalf of the National Country Party in looking after children in country areas. For many years the National Country Party has talked about the importance of decentralisation but has been scared stiff that it will ever occur. Decentralisation means that people who would not be persuaded to vote for the party would be living in country areas. We express our concern about the way the Government has ignored the disadvantaged country areas program and, of course not in the context of these guidelines, the attention which has not been given to the problems of isolated school children. There is a considerable shortfall between the recommendations of the Schools Commission on these matters and the amounts which have, in fact, been recommended in the guidelines.

Once again the link between the subsidy to non-government school funding and governmental schools costs is maintained. This will cause again the argument about the transfer of funds from government to non-government schools. This annual event will have to be dealt with at some stage. The transfer causes not only extra money to go to non-government schools as a whole but also, of course, extra money to go to the wealthiest schools in the non-government sector as well as the most needy schools in the non-government sector, namely, the Catholic parochial schools. When this Government talks about the non-government sector and tries to justify giving money to it the Government always talks appropriately about the poor Catholic schools. It is quite appropriate that it should do so because the poor Catholic schools have a lot of problems, particularly in the cities.

However, at the same time as the Government goes to the wailing wall on behalf of the poor Catholic schools- which we understand- and the handkerchiefs come out on the Government side, the wealthiest schools in this country are getting a better sling, if I may use that expression, under this Government’s policies. That is one of the hidden iniquities in education funding under the policy of the present Government. For example, the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) addressed the Slade School in Brisbane a couple of months ago. He said that the reason the Government supports these types of wealthy schools is that they produce the leaders of Australian society.

Senator Chipp:

– Fair go. Look at the time. For goodness sake! Everyone would like to make a 20-minute speech on something at this stage of the game. All of us have limited our speaking in consideration for other senators.

Senator BUTTON:

-I was not told that, Senator Chipp. I will just finish what I have to say, if the honourable senator does not mind. He did not limit his speaking time much last night.

Senator Chipp:

– A Senate committee wants to meet at 1 o ‘clock.

Senator BUTTON:

-A11 right; the honourable senator did not limit his speaking time much last night. The Slade School is an example of the sort of school about which I am talking. The problem again shows the lack of agreement between the States and the Commonwealth and the private sector in relation to these matters.

I will put briefly to the Senate the alternative view about these questions which I have just mentioned. One must assume a social responsibility for all schools in need. The Commonwealth must not become merely a funding agency for non-government schools. The Government had the gall to advance further towards its professed goal of providing for all non-government schools at least 20 per cent of the resources provided to government schools. There is a need to examine that policy closely in the light of what I have just had to say.

There is in the statement also a clear noncommitment to the concerns of handicapped children and of multicultural education programs in any real sense. They are the only beneficiaries in terms of growth in education funding because of the vote-catching decisions of the Liberal Party and the emphasis which it places on that process rather than on the needs of Australian children. That has about it exactly the same emphasis as that of the much-vaunted Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation, which we debated in this context yesterday and which came to grief.

We condemn the guidelines generally as being parsimonious, as showing no interest in or imagination about the future of education, or its problems, and in being totally wrong in emphasis and priorities. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2786

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE F

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

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

Leave granted.

page 2786

COAL EXPORT INDUSTRY

Reference to Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce

Motion ( by Senator Sheil) agreed to:

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 2786

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) agreed to:

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 or 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 or hour of meeting so determined shall be notified to each Senator.

page 2786

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) agreed to:

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 2786

PARLIAMENTARY APPROPRIATIONS

Appointment of Select Committee

Motion (by Senator Jessop) agreed to:

  1. 1 ) That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon Parliament’s control of its own appropriations and starling, 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.

  1. ) That the quorum of the Committee be three.
  2. That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the Senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
  3. 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.
  4. That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote.
  5. That the Committee have power to sent 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.
  6. 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.
  7. The Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources with the approval of the President.
  8. That the Committee present a final report as soon as possible.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader of the Australian Democrats nominating Senators Jessop, Knight, Missen, Douglas McClelland, Ryan and Mason to be members of a Select Committee on Parliamentary Appropriations.

Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) agreed to:

That the senators indicated, having been nominated in accordance with the terms of the resolution of the Senate, be appointed to the Select Committee on Parliamentary Appropriations.

page 2786

TABLING OF REPORTS

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I express my concern that there has been some discourtesy to the Senate in that reports which have been tabled in the last two days in the House of Representatives have not yet been tabled in the Senate. In the short space of time that I have available to me I shall merely state that those reports include reports relating to the fishing industry, the Australian Fisheries Council, the Australian Wheat Board, the Life Insurance Commissioner, the Superannuation Commissioner and the Australian National Railways Commission. Reports presented in the other place yesterday included reports on Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, the Commonwealth Fire Board, Radiological Safety and Future Land Use at the Emu Atomic Weapons Test Site, the Repatriation Review Tribunal, the Royal Military College of Australia, the Standing Committee on Road Safety and Trans-Australia Airlines. I have mentioned but a few. Quite a number of them attract the attention of members of the Senate. I express my concern that some discourtesy has been shown the Senate in that none of those reports has been tabled this day so that we can take note of them.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

page 2787

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1 980.

Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980.

page 2787

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1980

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1980.

page 2787

TRADE PRACTICES (BOYCOTTS) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to the Trade Practices (Boycotts) Amendment Bill 1980.

page 2787

PIPELINE AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to the Pipeline Authority Amendment Bill 1 980.

page 2787

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 2787

RELEASE OF EVIDENCE AND RECORDS OF COMMITTEES

Mr PRESIDENT:

– I have received the following message from the House of Representatives:

The House of Representatives, having considered Message No. 488 of the Senate, has agreed to the following resolution in relation thereto:

That the release of records and evidence of joint committees be authorised on the joint authority of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives on the following conditions:

the copies of evidence or records have been in the custody of the Parliament for at least 10 years;

the evidence was not taken in camera or submitted on a confidential or restricted basis, and

the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives report to the Senate and the House of Representatives respectively the nature of the documents made available and the person or persons to whom they have been made available.

page 2787

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN AGREEMENT (ORD RIVER IRRIGATION) BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Western Australia Agreement (Ord River Irrigation) Act 1 968 so that loan funds still available under the Act can also be used for handling and processing facilities for produce from the Ord River irrigation area. The proposed changes to the 1968 agreement Act are relatively minor. The scope of Commonwealth assistance to the State for development of water resources in the Kimberley region will be broadened to include the construction of crop handling and processing facilities. Loan funds for these purposes will be provided on terms, conditions and rates of interest agreed to from time to time by the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) and the State Treasurer.

It will be recalled that the report of the Commonwealth-State Ord River Irrigation Area Review Committee, under the independent chairmanship of Sir Norman Young, was tabled by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in the Parliament on 27 February 1979. Among other matters, it recommended that consideration be given to the use of funds still available under the Western Australia Agreement (Ord River Irrigation) Act 1 968 for crop handling and processing facilities when justified by successful commercial farming. The Government accepted this recommendation.

There were difficult times for Ord River farmers after the cessation of cotton-growing at the end of the 1973-74 season, following the build-up of resistance by insect pests to commercial insecticides. Numerous other crops were then tried which, on the basis of past research and experimental results, appeared to offer prospects for success. Rice growing has had a long research experience at the Ord, and a serious nutritional deficiency limiting yields was rectified some years ago. The Ord has a significant advantage over rice-growing areas in southern New South Wales, in that two crops can be grown annually. Total yields of 10 to 12 tonnes of paddy rice per hectare are being achieved and varieties currently under test indicate the potential for further improving the performance of the industry. By courtesy of the Western Australian Government, honourable senators had an opportunity of sampling this quality long grain rice in the parliamentary dining room.

Following this commercial success over the past few seasons additional rice storage facilities are required to cope with the projected expansion of the industry. The State asked for assistance of $500,000 for an additional 3,000 tonne storage and associated installations. Recently I have been advised that the estimated cost has risen considerably above the $718,000 mentioned in the other place, and the State has now submitted a modified proposal to construct a 1,200-tonne storage as a first stage at a cost of $350,000 in order to provide greater equity to current growers who will be financing the facility through storage charges.

Other main commercial crops now being successfully grown are sunflowers, soybeans and sorghum. The first commercial crop of peanuts grown on sandy soil is approaching harvest. Crop forecasts for the current dry season are for 3,000 hectares of sunflowers, 1,000 hectares of sorghum, 550 hectares of rice and 1,500 hectares of other crops. Sugar cane is also being grown with encouraging results at the Ord. A commercial-sized trial plantation of sugar cane is now in its third year of operation, following an encouraging feasibility study by CSR Ltd in 1975, and yields from this plantation compare more than favourably with those from the best fully irrigated cane crops in Queensland.

The establishment of the Ord irrigation scheme was an ambitious attempt to establish large-scale capital intensive irrigated agriculture to utilise the vast quantity of an uncommitted water resource in tropical Australia. To some extent, it is also a pilot project in that its successes and failures have important implications for water and associated land resources in many other regions in the north. The economic and social disadvantages inherent in the remoteness of the Ord from markets and sources of supply must be balanced by the advantages of a farming system which permits the full utilisation of a 12-month growing season, and abundant water resources and radiant energy. Recent results at the Ord appear to indicate that such a system is gradually evolving. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2788

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The Customs Tariff Validation Bill provides for the validation until 3 1 December this year, of customs duties collected, or to be collected, pursuant to Customs Tariff Proposals No. 8 ( 1 980 ) which were introduced into the House of Representatives on 1 May this year and which are not covered by the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill presently before the Senate. Proposals No. 8 give effect to the Government’s decision on recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission in its report on gearboxes, gears and shaft couplings.

Under section 226 of the Customs Act the collection of duties in pursuance of customs tariff proposals is protected against legal challenge for six months or the close of the session of Parliament, whichever occurs first. The introduction and passage of a validation Bill is therefore a necessary machinery measure which takes over from section 226 pending introduction of a customs tariff amendment Bill, anticipated for the Budget sitting, to enact formally the changes contained in these proposals. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2789

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1980 now before the Senate proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1966. The purpose of this Bill is to enact tariff changes made by Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 31-35 (1979) and Proposals Nos 1-7 (1980) which have been introduced into the House of Representatives at different times since 25 October last year. It also gives effect to a decision by the Government to add certain circular saw blades to Schedule A of the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement from 1 January this year. Changes contained in this Bill arise, in the main, from decisions by the Government on the following reports by the Industries Assistance Commission: Baby carriages and parts therefor; coated copying film; certain engines not exceeding 7.46 kW; rotary cultivators; tractors having a power of less than 15 kW; dental materials; furniture; grapes and wine; passenger motor vehicles and components- import restrictions; removal of primage duty; rubber products; ships, boats and other vessels not exceeding 6,000 tons gross register; and spirits, spirituous beverages, etc.

The Government has generally accepted the recommendations made by the Commission in its reports covered by this Bill and notes the Commission ‘s findings that acceptance of recommended levels of assistance will allow local industry to maintain its share of the market and continue a relatively constant level of employment. In some instances the Government has decided to defer introduction or phasing in of the long term level of assistance recommended by the Commission in order to help local manufacturers consolidate their market position or assist in a period of development. The Commission’s recommendations in its report on grapes and wine and on spirits, spirituous beverages, etc., were generally not accepted by the Government. The Government considered that it was not an appropriate time to reduce levels of protection to wine producers and grape growers as it could hamper their efforts to adjust production to market requirements. The Commission’s recommendations for spirits which proposed slight increases in duties to most potable spirits were considered by the Government to provide little impact on imported spirit prices and would have required Australia to enter into negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to obtain release from tariff bindings on certain spirituous beverages. The Government did, however, reduce the excise rate for grape brandies to enhance the competitive position of these products.

This Bill also contains amendments giving effect to Government initiatives on Australia’s trade with developing countries. The Government decided that an anomaly existed in that developing countries were disadvantaged because of the existence of a preference available to certain goods from British sources and it was decided to eliminate the preferential margin on some 500 items from 1 January 1980. In addition, a review of developing country preferences resulted in the provision of new or increased margins of preference for an additional 66 products from developing countries. Other main amendments contained in the Bill arise from Australia’s bilateral settlements with the United States of America, Japan and the European Community. As a result of negotiations, rates of duty applying to a number of tariff items have been reduced.

Honourable senators will also recall that the Government introduced last year a 2 per cent revenue duty on certain imported products. At that time exemptions from the revenue duty were provided for goods bound at a free rate of duty under international trade commitments. However, subsequent examination revealed that certain goods were bound at levels between free and 2 per cent and the imposition of the special revenue duty on those goods constituted a breach of our international commitments. Corrective action is contained in this Bill to provide exemption from 1 July 1 979. A consolidated list of amendments setting out the nature of changes in duty rates and the origin of each change have been prepared and copies are available from the Senate Records Office. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2790

ANTARCTIC TREATY (ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION) BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

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

-I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the protection of Antarctic wildlife and for the preservation of areas of outstanding ecological and scientific importance in the Antarctic. The conservation measures contained in the Bill arise from a long-standing international agreement first recommended at the 3rd Antarctic Treaty consultative meeting in 1964. The Antarctic Treaty is a corner-stone of international and Australian policies for Antarctica. Maintenance of Australia’s sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory is, of course, the other major consideration in our policy. I should like to take this opportunity to inform honourable senators of the ways in which these national and international obligations come together in the Government’s Antarctic policy.

Australia was an original signatory to the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 and continues to play an active and positive role in the support and development of the Treaty organisation. The Antarctic Treaty has ensured that Antarctica remains a zone of peace and international co-operation. This is a remarkable and valuable achievement. The Treaty nations have established an excellent tradition of co-operation and open scientific investigation. The knowledge gained in the various national research programs is available for the development of management plans and guidelines for future development. I am pleased to say that Australia is at the forefront of this cooperation and that it is this Government’s policy to maintain and stengthen that position through increased scientific research. I am especially encouraged by the progress made towards a convention for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources. These negotiations are likely to be finalised at a meeting in Canberra in May this year. The proposed convention will ensure that any exploitation of the living resources of the Southern Ocean is conducted according to sound ecological and environmental principles.

There is widespread speculation that Antarctica may be the site of an unprecedented minerals boom in the 1980s and beyond. Investigations of the continent’s resource potential are in a very early stage and the environmental and legal problems have yet to be fully assessed. It is the Government’s policy that active programs of research will be directed to the possible environmental effects of exploration and exploitation so that future developments can be based on sound principles. Over the next few years, development of international guidelines for exploration and mineral development will have high priority at Treaty party consultative meetings. In the meantime all nations have agreed to refrain from commercial exploration and exploitation. Australia will be active in ensuring that any agreement made on this matter takes into account the special environmental problems of the Antarctic and includes rigorous controls to limit environmental impact.

Antarctic nature conservation and environment protection rank high in priority in both the Antarctic Treaty and Australian Government policy. The Bill presently before the Senate gives effect to one of the major conservation agreements negotiated under the Antarctic Treaty. Known as the ‘Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora’ this agreement establishes a system of wildlife protection which is one of the most stringent internationally agreed conservation regimes anywhere in the world. The agreed measures have, until now, been implemented by means of administrative action by the Department of Science and the Environment. The Bill now before the Senate will give the agreed measures force of law.

Under the agreed measures all wildlife in Antarctica is protected. Indigenous animals and plants may be collected only when specific permits are given. The agreement ratified by this Bill makes provision for three categories of special protection:

Specially Protected Species may be declared where there is evidence that the survival of the species is under threat. Collection of these species can be undertaken only for compelling scientific reasons.

Specially Protected Areas may be declared to protect delicate habitats or the breeding grounds of birds or seals.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest are reserves declared for their outstanding value as natural laboratories for scientific inquiry. Such areas are declared on the advice of the international scientific community.

Honourable senators will be aware of the damage caused in this country by feral animals such as rabbits and goats and of the way in which plants such as lantana and cacti have changed the Australian environment. The Antarctic Treaty nations are anxious to avoid such problems in Antarctica. Accordingly, the Bill establishes controls over the importation of animals and plants. This measure is also intended to avoid the introduction of diseases in the breeding colonies of native birds. The Bill covers both the activities of Australians anywhere on the Antarctic continent and the activities of any national in the Australian Antarctic Territory. The permit system to be established under this Bill gives the Minister power to regulate organisations and individuals in respect of activities involving wildlife and their habitat.

The Bill also provides for the making of regulations to cover the control of pollution, the use of motor vehicles and other issues relating to environmental protection. As a consequence of Australian sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory we have a special responsibility to ensure that the Antarctic environment remains protected from any adverse effects of human occupation. Increased activity on the continent, whether stemming from tourism or resources exploration, must occur only within rational guidelines for environmental protection. This Bill provides these guidelines in the Australian Antarctic Territory and supports measures elsewhere in Antarctica. The provisions embodied in the Bill represent the culmination of long and carefully considered efforts by many nations including Australia, and constitute an important step forward in the protection of the Antarctic environment. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2791

WAR GRAVES BILL 1980

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

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

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

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

Second Readings

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

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

Senator McLaren:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. These Bills are being brought on in the Senate and we do not even have copies of yesterday’s House of Representatives Hansard. We cannot read even the Minister’s second reading speeches and the Minister is now incorporating them. So we will be at a loss to debate these Bills when they are dealt with.

Senator Puplick:

– The speeches were on your desk this morning.

Senator McLaren:

– Yes, but what I am saying is that we do not yet have yesterday’s Hansard from the other place. We do not know what took place in the House of Representatives. The Bills have not been distributed. I do not have them. Yet the Minister is now seeking to incorporate the second reading speeches. That applies to some of the other Bills which are to be dealt with, too. Those of us in the Opposition who wish to speak to these Bills are at somewhat of a loss.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator, you will find that the Bills are in the folder on your bench.

Senator McLaren:

– But what I am saying is that we do not have the House of Representatives Hansard.

Senator Carrick:

– In answer to Senator McLaren’s query, I point out that I was not aware that copies of Hansard had not been distributed. I will see if we can get them into the hands of honourable senators as quickly as possible.

The speeches read as follows-

War Graves Bill 1980

The purpose of this Bill is to give statutory recognition to the establishment, care and maintenance of Australian war graves and to create the position of Director of War Graves. No legislation dealing directly with the administration of war graves, apart from inclusion in Appropriation Bills of proposed expenditure in this area of operation, has ever been passed by the Parliament.

Before proceeding to the scope of the Bill, I feel that I should provide honourable senators with some background information on the ways in which Australia has commemorated those men and women who died in action, or afterwards. The practice of commemorating Service dead began when the Imperial War Graves Commission, later renamed the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, was created by royal charter in 1917 to act on behalf of governments of British Empire countries to mark and care for permanently the graves of men and women of the forces who died in the 1914-18 War. Later the royal charter was extended to include the graves of those members of the Commonwealth forces who gave their lives in the 1939-45 War. Whilst the Commission’s responsibility is confined to war deaths during either one or other of the world wars, it has been the policy of successive Australian Governments since the 1 9 1 4- 1 8 War to extend equal commemoration to all Australians who, irrespective of cause of death, have been awarded the Victoria Cross; whose deaths have been accepted by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs as being due to service in any campaign involving Australian forces; or whose deaths have not been accepted as being due to service, but who were receiving at the time of death a disability pension at the special rate for total and permanent incapacity.

The Office of Australian War Graves, a division of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, acts on behalf of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in caring for graves of those men and women who died in the two world wars, and also on behalf of the Australian Government in caring for the graves of other eligible Australian Service dead. The extent of the operations of the Office may be gauged by the fact that it cares for all Commonwealth war graves, cemeteries and memorials of the two world wars in Australia, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon IslandsGuadalcanal and Norfolk Island. It also cares for war graves and memorials in Australia and Papua New Guinea of German, Dutch and French nationals on behalf of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Under a special arrangement entered into with the Commission in 1974, the Office of Australian War Graves, as agent of the Commission, cares for and maintains the Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery at Ambon, Indonesia. The Japanese War Cemetery at Cowra, New South Wales is also maintained by the Office of Australian War Graves by arrangement with the Government of Japan.

The Office of Australian War Graves provides without cost to the relatives of deceased veterans a wide variety of assistance which includes kerbing, in filling, erecting of headstones and placing plaques on graves of veterans; plaques marking graves in lawn cemeteries; and placing ashes of deceased veterans in niches in Memorial Walls and sealing of those niches with plaques. The Office does not provide these services in circumstances where a private monumental work has been erected over a grave or where private arrangements have already been made for the ashes of a deceased veteran. However, it is policy of the Government that all ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen who died as a result of their service for Australia are equally commemorated. To that end gardens of remembrance were established in each State capital city and Launceston and suitably inscribed plaques bearing details of the deceased are erected. In this way, the deceased are honoured among those with whom they served in a place of dignity and peace.

The scope of the Bill is limited to the purpose to which I have referred, namely creation of a statutory office of Director of War Graves. The function of the Director shall be, under the Secretary to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, to administer the Department’s war graves activities. The Bill provides for the Director to be appointed by the Governor-General and the terms and conditions of this appointment and the provisions for termination and resignation are spelled out in detail. The person appointed to the office will be responsible, under the Secretary to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, for carrying out the activities of the Department in relation to war graves in Australia and overseas. It is further provided that an officer of the Australian Public Service if appointed as Director will retain all of his existing and accruing rights through the application of the provisions of the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act. Provision is made in the Bill for an Acting Director to be appointed and for staff to assist the Director to be drawn from persons employed in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

To allow honourable senators to be informed on the Department’s war graves activities a provision has been included in the Bill that will require the Secretary to the Department to prepare and furnish an annual report to the Minister for presentation to Parliament. Provision has been made in the Bill for the Governor-General to make regulations relating solely to the office of Director. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Australian War Memorial Bill 1980

The Australian War Memorial is the expression of the vision of that great historian Dr C. E. W. Bean and the dedication of those responsible for its development over the years. It is well known as the nation’s memorial to those who have fought and died for their country. It is also acknowledged as a major museum and the largest repository of relics, art works and memorabilia relating to war or war-like operations in which Australians have been involved.

This Bill perpetuates and continues the Australian War Memorial. Its primary function has been a memorial and the Government is committed to the maintenance of this essential character. However, the Memorial has a number of other functions and following a request from the Board of Trustees, the Government agreed that they should be clarified and more specifically stated in the legislation. The opportunity has also been taken to update some of the provisions and bring them into line with the provisions of the statutes of other Commonwealth cultural institutions. Honourable senators will note, for example, that many of what might be called the administrative clauses of this Bill are identical with those in the Museum of Australia Bill which was introduced into the Parliament earlier this session. One of the changes originally proposed was that the title of the Institution be changed to ‘The Australian War Memorial Museum ‘. After further consideration following discussions with the Board of Trustees and, may I say, a number of representations, the Government has now decided that the present name will be retained.

I now turn to some of the principal features of the Bill. The 1962 legislation created a situation whereby part of the collections of the Memorial were owned by the Commonwealth and part by the Memorial. This, as honourable senators will appreciate, created administrative difficulties for the Board of Trustees. To overcome these difficulties, the Bill provides for the ownership of all the collections to be vested in the Memorial. This provision does not apply, however, to material deposited with the Memorial by other agencies. The Memorial will continue to have custody of such material but control over it and access to it will remain with the department or authority that deposited it. With the Memorial taking over ownership of the collections, it will no longer be appropriate for the governing body to be known as the Board of Trustees. The Bill, therefore, provides for the appointment of a council. The appointment provisions remain unchanged other than that members are to be appointed for specified terms instead of as at present at the Governor-General ‘s pleasure.

For a number of years, the Memorial has been concerned to depict not only conflicts in which Australians have been engaged, but also the events leading up to conflict on all sections of the community. It has been increasingly important to explain the reasons underlying Australia’s involvement in war and war-like activities as the changing population base in Australia has resulted in the majority of Australians having no direct association with our military history. It is a proud history, and whilst we do not set out to glorify warfare, we do have a responsibility to explain Australia’s role in it- particularly to the younger generations and to those Australians who have recently migrated to this land and made it their own. For this reason, the Bill provides specifically for the educational responsibilities of the Memorial and for it to assist in the creation and maintenance of museums in military establishments.

The Bill overcomes another anomalous situation. Whilst the trustees have been responsible for the management of the Memorial, staff provided and funds appropriated for the operation of the Memorial have not been under their control. The Department of Home Affairs has been responsible both for the provision of staff and for the expenditure of these moneys but in future both staff and funds will be under the direct control of the Council.

There are a number of other provisions in this Bill which differ from the present arrangements. They relate to such matters as the office of the

Director, receipt and expenditure of appropriated and other funds and delegations. They are mainly standard provisions, similar to those in the legislation of other comparable institutions.

The net effect of this Bill is to maintain the primary purpose of the Memorial and to update and clarify its legislation- in other words, to give it an up-to-date charter. I believe that the members of its Council will be able to exercise their responsibilities more effectively and consequently more Australians will be able to appreciate and to understand the heroism and the sacrifices of those who contribute to the defence of this country. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2794

WESTERN AUSTRALIA AGREEMENT (ORD RIVER IRRIGATION) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The Western Australia Agreement (Ord River Irrigation) Bill 1980 is consistent with one of the recommendations in last year’s report of the Commonwealth-State Ord River Irrigation Area Review Committee- chaired by Sir Norman Young-which suggested that some of the funds for which provision was made under an earlier Act for the distribution of water in the Ord Valley, should be made available to finance facilities to provide for the storage and processing of crops. That is what this Bill seeks to do. Apparently it will provide initially for the appropriation of $350,000 for the construction of storage facilities for about 1 ,200 tonnes of rice. It is a loan only, and for that reason the Opposition will not oppose the Bill. According to the second reading speech the capital is to be amortised by rice growers over the years. I presume that the Western Australian Government will be responsible for the repayment of the loans should the growers default. I invite the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) to clear up that matter when he replies to the second reading debate. I certainly hope that the Western Australian Government will be responsible for it, because that Government is responsible for the whole scheme.

The original Ord River scheme was bom out of political opportunism and intellectual sloth. It has been sustained ever since by Sir Charles Court’s vanity. The original Act was pushed through in 1967 because the Liberal and Country Party coalition thought it would lose the fifth Senate seat in Western Australia. It thought $100m worth of pork barrelling in the Kimberley region was a quite acceptable price to pay for securing that fifth Senate seat. Since then, more than $ 100m- a good deal more than $100m if we use current value terms- has been sunk into the scheme, as well as an annual direct subsidy from the Western Australian Government of about $4m and an indirect subsidy greatly in excess of that because Cunnunurra is a government pensioner town. Half the work force are government employees and if anyone cares to stand in the street at any time of the day or night he sees that most of the vehicles driving up and down have Western Australian government registration plates on them. It is a Western Australian government pensioner town sustained by a Premier who claims to be an apostle of free enterprise and who is hostile to any suggestion that government bureaucracy should be expanded or, as he puts it, more bottoms should be put on more seats. All of that is to sustain a handful of farms.

The nation will never get an economic return for the capital that has been sunk into this scheme, although some farms might at some stage be able to operate profitably provided the initial capital expenditure in excess of $ 100m is written off. With the return to rice growing in the Ord area, the wheel has turned a full circle. When the scheme was first seriously pushed by the Western Australian Government, a diversion dam was constructed in 1962, rice growing was carried out and was supposed to have had a great economic future. It was supposed to have been the major crop which would make the Ord viable. A rice mill was installed in the Ord in the early 1 960s. It was transported to Ayr in central Queensland after rice growing folded up in the Ord. Indeed, Queensland apparently has a continuing source of very cheap machinery available to it as project after project fails at the Ord River. Queensland has taken over the rice mill which was shifted away in the 1960s. More recently, it has taken the cotton gin since cotton growing was also abandoned in the Kimberleys.

The rice growing fantasy is one of the later fantasies of Sir Charles Court. His latest fantasy is that the Ord is destined to become a major energy-producing region of Australia because, says he, it will be generating hydro-electricity for Darwin, although there has been no cost-benefit analysis done on that, and it will be providing ethanol from sugar cane. Whilst it is possible that ethanol production might be economically viable from sugar cane or from some other form of carbohydrate in Australia, the Ord region is one of the last places where this is likely to be viable, first because it will lack the essential pre-requisite for success- that is a cheap source of carbohydrate- and also because it will not have a local market of sufficient size to use the ethanol in the optimum way; that is, as an extender for motor spirit. That is the latest fantasy that the Premier has about this region.

There have, of course, been a whole series of Court fantasies. Back in the early 1960s they involved rice, sugar and cotton and later in the sixties kenaf, safflower and lot feed beef. The fantasy of lot feed beef is a hardy perennial which ignores the fact that, apart from cost, the greatest limiting factor of the Kimberley cattle industry is the poor reproductive rate. The harsh conditions do not allow a very high turnoff. Indeed, the turnoff is only about 10 per cent of the herd. Therefore that essential pre-requisite for establishing a significant beef lot feed industry there will not be present. The raw material- the cattle- will not be available in large numbers until the poor reproductive performance of the herd can be improved. Now we have the fantasy about peanuts and rice the second time around.

When one looks at the sorry history of this project and at Sir Charles Court’s primary, dominant role in it throughout one cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that it is just as well Sir Charles Court got out of the private sector when he did because if he had managed his own business with the same degree of ineptitude that he has displayed in managing the Ord River he would have been bankrupt a couple of decades ago. It is also worth questioning, since he is a selfacclaimed apostle of free enterprise, why he does not back this project with his own money instead of conscripting taxpayers’ money to do it. I have frequently put that question to Sir Charles. I have never previously had an answer. I invite him again to answer. As the leading apostle of free enterprise at least on the western half of the continent, why does he not back this project with his own money instead of conscripting taxpayers’ money to do so? One could also ask, since he sells everything out to foreign interests, why he does not sell the Ord River scheme out to foreign interests. But I do not need his answer. I can answer the question. It is because he cannot find any foreigners silly enough to pay out the $ 100m that has already been sunk into this scheme.

So much for the sordid history of this project. The capital will never be recovered. It was an irresponsible investment, as I said at the beginning, born out of political opportunism and intellectual sloth and sustained ever since by the vanity of the Premier of Western Australia. The capital is, of course, not recoverable. We are not opposing this Bill. Whether rice growing will become commercially viable remains to be seen. It is at least better to be using the unallocated funds which are available under the original Act for something like this than for a further extension of the basis of the scheme, that is, the water distribution system to expand the area of land available for agriculture.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– The Australian Democrats also support this Bill. In the few notes which I made, my language to describe the origin of the Ord River scheme is nowhere near as colourful as the words used by Senator Walsh. I look forward to reading his comments tomorrow in Hansard. Although I do not doubt the accuracy of his description, my description is that even if the scheme was based on a false premise, even a political premise, we cannot walk away from it now. Whether or not is was well judged in the first instance, there certainly is a need to develop the north west of Australia and to prove the viability of such development. We believe the scheme does have potential. There is a potential for some agriculture in the future. There is also a potential for the development of a power grid, as Senator Walsh mentioned. But I remind him that quite often what might well be not viable economically can immediately become viable by the stroke of a government pen. I refer to a power grid and also to the extraction of power alcohol from sugar cane. Sometimes it is politically wise and wise in the interests of the nation for governments to intervene in the free market place for the good of decentralisation, which I would very much support.

Australia is ripping resources and money out of the north west. I think those of us in the big cities, particularly in the east, must remember that Australia is ripping diamonds, iron ore, oil and gas from the north west of Australia. Those of us who live in Melbourne, Sydney and other locations in the east should not complain about putting some money back into the area.

The aim of this Bill is to give the north west a more balanced development, not just development in minerals. The remoteness of the area cannot even be conceived by those of us in Melbourne, Sydney or in the Canberra parliamentary triangle. One has only to spend some time there, as I am sure all of us have, to appreciate that. Indeed the future fuel price rises may so greatly increase the cost of freighting food to the north west that localised food production in that area may become more competitive and even essential. Because of the shortness of time, I limit my remarks to those few comments and say that the Australian Democrats strongly commend this Bill.

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

– in reply- I will be brief. I am grateful that the Bill is supported on both sides of the chamber. It amends the Western Australian Agreement (Ord River Irrigation) Act so that loan funds still available under the Act can be used for handling and processing facilities for produce from the Ord River irrigation area. Senator Walsh posed a couple of questions. I indicate that the agreement is with the Western Australian Government, not with the rice growers. The Western Australian Government will be responsible in terms of repayment. Senator Walsh, I think, gave the impression that the Commonwealth was committed to the extent of $ 100m. He may not have intended that. The Commonwealth in fact is committed under the agreement to a sum of $48. 18m of which about $24m is still available.

The Ord River scheme is controversial. May I simply say this, and I think Senator Chipp will agree with me: In the driest continent on earth, in a continent that lacks rivers, any water conservation scheme deserves the fullest testing because if there is one resource that we lack and one resource that we need, it is water. Although we have had difficulties in our journey so far, I think it is wrong and too early to condemn a situation in which with growing technology particularly in the area of irrigated tropical agriculture we may well develop abilities to put this area to very good use. I should think we all ought to strive towards that end, particularly, I reiterate, as water is our most precious asset. On that basis I commend the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2796

HANSARD

The PRESIDENT:

– I advise honourable senators, particularly Senator McLaren who raised this matter, that due to industrial troubles experienced at the Government Printing Office the Hansard for the House of Representatives is not yet available but as soon as it comes out we will have copies distributed.

page 2796

ANTARCTIC TREATY (ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– The Opposition supports the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Bill. The Bill in effect ratifies Agreed Measures for the conservation of Antarctic fauna and flora. The Agreed Measures were decided upon at the Third Antarctic Treaty consultative meeting held at Brussels on 2 to 13 June 1964. At that meeting it was recommended that the Agreed Measures be approved and implemented by the Treaty countries as soon as possible. Yet now, almost 16 years later, after agreement has just been reached concerning the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, the Government has finally seen fit to put the Agreed Measures into effect. One hopes that Australia, as the depository country of the recently agreed to Convention and with the international headquarters for the Convention to be established in Hobart, will take considerably less time than 1 6 years to ratify the Convention.

The Opposition, in supporting the Bill, has some justifiable qualms about the Government’s credentials in giving effect to it. This Government has a dubious record on environmental protection. We are all aware of the conflicting views of members of the Government on drilling of the Great Barrier Reef. They are strong on platitudes and weak on action. My main concern is that the Government adheres to the spirit of the Agreed Measures as well as to the legal terms. The Government’s past record in that respect is not very encouraging. The Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson), in his second reading speech in the other place, stated:

There is widespread speculation that Antarctica may be the site of an unprecedented minerals boom in the 1980s and beyond. Investigations of the continent’s resource potential are in a very early stage and the environmental and legal problems have yet to be fully assessed, lt is the Government’s policy that active programs of research will be directed to the possible environmental effects of exploration and exploitation so that future developments can be based on sound principles.

I am perturbed by the Minister’s statement which, whilst stating that environmental research will go ahead, implied that future exploration and exploitation development will proceed regardless of the result of the research. At present Australia spends $2m a year on all types of research in the Antarctic. The Antarctic Research Policy Advisory Committee in November 1979 recommended greatly increased funding for a high quality research program concerning the living and mineral resources of the Antarctic and the environmental effects of their exploitation. Any exploitation or exploration of the resources in the fragile Antarctic environment will almost certainly have substantial environmental effects. I hope that the Government will be able to accept results of research which recommend non-exploitation strategies in environments which are shown to be very fragile. I would like to think that Antarctica will not be viewed by the same greedy eyes which at present are turning their attention to the Great Barrier Reef and that a sensible environmental policy will be established under the regulations of the Bill.

The Bill before the Senate in its present form does little to provide for environment protection in Antarctica as such. Only by the implementation of programs under the regulations can this Bill be effective. The Government must carry out its responsibility and apply the spirit of this legislation. We note that the jurisdiction of this Bill applies to Australian citizens throughout the Antarctic. This means that an Australian citizen needs a permit to take flora and fauna out of as well as into the Australian Antarctic Territory. But if an Australian had a permit or authority of a government which approves the Agreed Measures, that person can act according to that particular permit or authority. This therefore takes into account the legitimate, scientific studies undertaken by other countries and illustrates the international interests and cooperation in respect of Antarctica.

Countries which ratified the Agreed Measures and therefore those which are permitted to take flora and fauna, recognised by this Bill are Argentina, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Japan and Belgium have not ratified the Agreed Measures. These 12 countries, plus Poland, the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany were the countries involved in meetings held over the past weeks in Canberra and which passed agreement on the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. This Convention will come into force when eight of these states have ratified it.

Pressure has come from countries outside the Treaty nations for access to Antarctica’s potential wealth. There have also been calls that Antarctica should be preserved as a heritage area for all of mankind. The lack of research, information and technology make the exploitation of Antarctica’s resources- both living and nonlivinga very risky business, both in monetary and environmental terms. I feel that the Minister’s statement made in the other place was rather bland and expansive about the development in Antarctica. It seemed to be based on rhetoric rather than common sense. I would hope that this Government gives much more thought to the subject of the Antarctic environment, both marine and terrestrial.

Australia must use its influence to persuade those nations involved in the Antarctic to think first about the environment of the Antarctic. We in Australia are vitally affected by environmental conditions in the Antarctic. Our weather patterns are to a significant extent influenced by the Antarctic. Mindless exploitation of the Antarctic could detrimentally affect the future environment of Australia. I repeat that the Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I also welcome the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Bill 1980 and will make a few brief remarks about it. I call the attention of the Senate to the fact that, in November 1977, the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment of which I have the pleasure of being Chairman tabled a progress report giving an outline of policy matters for science and technology. Antarctica was among the topics mentioned in that report. In particular the Committee drew attention to the research being conducted in Antarctica by the Department of Science and the Environment and pointed out that the results of this research had considerable significance for the growing awareness around the world of the resources and potential of the Antarctic. It emphasised that important, far reaching decisions were imminent regarding the future of the region and that Australia’s science and technology policy must, before then, have developed to a point so that relevant contributions could be made to the international debate on the future of Antarctica.

Nothing has altered since then to reduce the relevance of those comments. If anything, awareness of our ignorance of the region has been heightened. Wise decisions concerning the future of Antarctica can only be made from a position of knowledge and that means scientific knowledge. I believe our knowledge of Antarctica for any purpose of conservation, let alone sensible exploitation and associated protection, is quite inadequate.

The structure and composition of the continental shelf is also almost completely unknown. Our information concerning the wildlife of

Antarctica is but sketchy, particularly that relating to the marine life. Its interrelationship and mutual dependencies have hardly been studied. The Antarctic ice mass has a profound influence on the world’s climate. We are all aware of the various scenarios which could result in a melting of the icecap, yet the meteorological mechanisms involved are very poorly understood. In this connection, I cannot stress too strongly the role the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica plays in controlling the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Much of the carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels such as petrol, oil, or coal is eventually dissolved in the oceans. This is most fortunate, for were it not so, the greenhouse effect of this build-up would have led already to the melting of the ice and consequent inundation of much of the habitable world.

The Southern Ocean is of particular importance in this situation because solubility of gases in water increases with the lowering of temperature. Yet the fate of carbon dioxide and other atmospheric pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, once dissolved in the ocean, is at best speculative. Nor is it really known what the absorptive capacity of the oceans for these gases happens to be. Already the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere has increased considerably in modern times. Even so, we contemplate with equanimity energy policies which cheerfully propose a fourfold increase in coal consumption before the end of the century, coupled with rising oil consumption. In view of our ignorance about the fate of atmospheric carbon dioxide, such energy policies may be completely mistaken.

Accordingly, I urge that the maximum possible support be given to Australian Antarctic research, with particular emphasis on studies aimed at a proper quantitative understanding of the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and the oceans. In the interests of time, I seek leave to have two articles incorporated in Hansard.

The first article, entitled ‘World ecology is endangered’, is from the Melbourne Age of 16 April, and deals with an examination by a panel of internationally recognised scientists. They told the United States Congress: . . that the world could face an ecological disaster unless the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere is controlled.

The second article is older, having been written on 28 February 1977. It is entitled ‘Heating Up: Global Race for Antarctic’s Riches’, and I wish to have only highlights of that article incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

World ecology is endangered

A panel of internationally recognised scientists has told the United States Congress that the world could face an ecological disaster unless the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere is controlled.

The scientists, testifying before the Senate energy and natural resources committee, said the increase posed a longterm threat to the world.

There is little question as to the reality of the increase, or the rate, ‘ said Dr William Kellogg, one of the scientists.

Increased burning of coal, oil and natural gas is the main cause, and clearing of the world ‘s forests also is significant.

Within 40 or 50 years the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere may cause the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ to begin- heating the Earth, possibly melting the polar ice caps and raising the level of the oceans. Coastal cities could bc flooded while inland crop lands could be turned into dust bowls.

Decisions made now would determine how fast carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere and thus how warm the Earth becomes and how rapidly the changes occur.

But political expediency- including the US decision to make coal its main fuel source in coming decades- is aggravating the problem.

In the long run, the United States may learn to its discomfort that coal is as dangerous as nuclear power- and perhaps more so, the scientists said.

The scientists include Dr David Rose of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr Wallace Broecker of Columbia University, Dr George Woodwell of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, Dr Gordon Macdonald of the Mitre Corporation in Virginia, Dr Kellogg of the National Centre Tor Atmospheric Research, and Dr David Burns of the American Association for the Advancement of Science

The hearing was called to discuss recent research into the problem. In opening the hearing, Senator Paul Tsongas noted that a report by the National Academy of Sciences had put carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere at 333 parts per million (PPM), an increase of 15 PPM in 20 years.

If scientific estimates prove correct, continued carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning plants . . . will cause carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to double in a bout 50 years, ‘ Senator Tsongas said.

Given this increase, by the middle of the next century, we will find that the gradual rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide will have caused a conspicious warming of global temperatures, with related effects on rain and wind patterns. ‘

The scientists generally agreed with the figures, but noted that programs to restore the world ‘s forests and stop massive deforestation must also be a part of any solution. That will cause a problem in the Third World, they noted, because leaders there have strong incentives to clear forests for farming.

If I can oversimplify things somewhat, the attitude of the developing countries is that they have problems much greater than carbon dioxide, ‘ Dr Kellogg said.

The scientists also were critical of President Carter’s decision to begin a massive program to develop synthetic fuel from coal and convert the nation ‘s power plants to coal.

Confronted by Senator Tsongas ‘s hypothetical choice between coal and nuclear power, the scientists said they couldn ‘t decide which was safer for the environment.

The choice you give me is an impossible choice,’ Dr Woodwell said. Dr Kellogg called the two ‘equally dangerous in different ways’, but noted nuclear power carries ‘psychic problems’.

I would not rule out nuclear,’ Dr Macdonald said. ‘In my view, ii can be used in such a way to pose less of a hazard than a much higher usage of synthetic fuel and coal. ‘

Heating Up: Global Race for Antarctic Riches

Hints of these riches- oil, natural gas, uranium, precious metals and vast food resources from the icy Antarctic waters- are so tantalizing that they threaten to touch off a global gold rush.

To fully exploit the Antarctic’s resources will mean overcoming monumental problems. . . promising findings such as research teams examining a small fraction of the 200,000 square miles of the continent’s surface not covered with ice and snow have found gold, platinum, iron, copper, nickel, cobalt, uranium and large quantities of coal.

The continental shelf of Antarctica appears to harbor oil and natural-gas fields of potentially vast proportions.

The icy waters surrounding the continent compose one of the richest feeding grounds for marine life in the world.

The Treaty is still in force, the only framework of law for the Antarctic. Unfortunately, it does not spell out what happens to the continent ‘s resources if a commercial venture or a country decides to exploit them.

. before resources are tapped, exhaustive studies to determine impacts on the fragile polar ecology should be made. Exploitation might then be possible if the ecosystem can be preserved without significant damage.

The food chain in the Antarctic is so short and fragile that diminishing even one species could have serious side effects.

Unwise or reckless exploitation of Antarctic krill could lead to the collapse of their populations and trigger disastrous changes throughout the Antarctic marine ecosystem. . . scientists have been working . . . trying to find out if theoretical projections of rich mineral deposists can be firmed up with solid discoveries in the field. . . you can’t make an intelligent decision about resource exploitation- one way or the other without adequate base-line information. . . if field teams discover a rich deposit of any commercially exploitable mineral in the Antarctic, ‘this is inevitably going to strain the Antarctic Treaty.’ . . .

Their discoveries could be the undoing of a Treaty that worked well for the first half of its 30-year life and now may require diplomatic miracles to survive the second half.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– I rise briefly to support this legislative measure, which places in statutory form the commitment already given informally, I believe, over the years by the Australian Government to the preservation, so far as is possible, of the fauna and flora of the Antarctic region, which grows and prospers in the delicate, fragile sub-environments within the cold wilderness that generally characterises the great continent to our south. The convention that the legislation purports to carry out has to do with the flora and fauna of that region. There is no doubt that, as Senator Jessop indicated, in an energy-hungry world nations’ commercial enterprises and ventures with the billions of dollars which are necessary to secure vast energy resources will be looking to the Antarctic region to secure the great reserves of coal and other minerals and energy resources that may be locked in that frozen wilderness. In doing so of course, they may very well disrupt the fragile microenvironments within which the flora and fauna of the Antarctic prosper. For that reason, every step that can be taken to secure those environments against the depredations of those whose only goal is profit is to be welcomed.

It is to be noted also that the Government took a leading role in the organisation of the conference held in Canberra over the last two weeks which dealt with the living marine resources of the oceans and the area of the Antarctic. As a senator for Tasmania, I have a very particular interest in the proposed convention which emerged at that meeting.

Senator Sibraa:

– Did you attend the conference?

Senator TATE:

– I attended the conference as an observer from this Parliament, along with many other senators from both sides of this chamber. I am pleased to say that one of the features of that conference was the total community support evidenced by the bipartisan political approach of senators and representatives and the total community support throughout Australia for the preservation of this area as a zone of peace and scientific development. The usual conflicts between nation states, which have characterised history, and the usual approach to resources which characterise mankind generally, may be put to one side in order that this area to our south may become a model of the future community within which we all try to co-operate to secure a habitable place for our children and our children ‘s children.

In speaking as a Tasmanian senator, rather than simply a citizen of the world, may I say how pleased I was to see that the State Labor Government and the Federal Liberal Party and National Country Party Government were able to come to an agreement whereby the world Antarctic headquarters for the International Antarctic Commission are to be located in Hobart. This decision carries to its logical conclusion the initiatives of the Whitlam Government and in particular the work of Mr John Coates, who will be joining this Senate after the next elections, which led to the decision to locate the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Antarctic Division in Hobart. That decision has been carried through with the support of members and senators from both sides of both Houses of Parliament, and was assisted by the active prodding of Senator Ken Wriedt who is in this chamber to listen to this very important debate. The CSIRO Antarctic division not only has been sent to Hobart, but also the Government has decided to establish a marine science centre in Hobart and this will include transferring the CSIRO division of Fisheries and Oceanography. This adds to the status of Hobart as the future logistic centre for scientific and commercial developments and understanding of the Antarctic region.

It is worthy of note that the University of Tasmania has had a proposal before the Government for at least two years that a centre of excellence be established at that university to deal with marine and Antarctic studies. It is proposed to draw upon the already expert body of persons within the university. As a centre of excellence it will attract people of international reputation. A marine and Antarctic study centre should be established which would provide that depth of research which, in co-operation with the CSIRO and the International Antarctic Commission, would add to the status of Hobart not only as a providoring and service port, but also as a scientific headquarters for the proper understanding of that vast region to our south. It is a matter of some concern to me that after two years the Government still has not come to a decision. We certainly look forward to the establishment of that centre of excellence within the University of Tasmania.

It is good to note that the Government has overcome some of its concern about its cooperation with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in allowing the Ambassador from the USSR- accredited to the recent conference held in Canberra- to travel to Hobart to acquaint himself with the facilities available for the operations in the Antarctic.

Senator Sibraa:

– It is a wonder it was not boycotted.

Senator TATE:

– I am pleased that the Government in permitting that trip overcame some scruples it may have had.

Senator Primmer:

– Wasn’t he the one who travelled on a VIP plane?

Senator TATE:

– I believe he was one of several ambassadors who travelled on a VIP aircraft to Hobart in order to see for himself the great facilities of that marvellous port. I am not in any way point scoring; I am merely saying that that is a good, sensible, rational approach to the long term development of Tasmania as the headquarters for, perhaps, the bulk of marine activities in the great southern oceans and the Antarctic continent. I was pleased to see that out of that visit, also, the Government decided to establish a dry dock in Tasmania to service the fishing vessels and the other vessels which will be using the waters to our south. I think that leads to the next logical step which would be in harmony with the Government’s permission for the negotiation of forward contracts to do with the sale of wheat to the Soviet Union.

I put in a special plea on this last day of the session that the Government consider the merits of permitting a re-opening of negotiations on the joint fishing venture which was proposed between James IXL and a Soviet fishing corporation. I suggest that it may be that, to be consistent and to ensure an even-handed approach to all regions of Australia, the Government not only permit the wheat growers to negotiate with a view to securing future contracts for the sale of their wheat but also allow this Australian company to continue negotiating and engaging in joint feasibility study with the Russians as joint venturers in order that we may establish whether a joint fishing venture could be based in Hobart because this is very important to the economy and to the employment prospects of southern Tasmania. I bring that matter into this debate because I think it would complement and supplement the efforts of both the Federal and the State governments to ensure that Tasmania does become, as I say, the logistic headquarters for both the commercial and the scientific understanding and development of the Antarctic. I finish, given the brief time available to us, with those few words and commend the Government for the steps taken so far in the preservation of that fragile environment to our south.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– The control and the management of the resources of the Antarctic are two of the many areas under the control of the Department of Science and the Environment which are very rarely debated in this Parliament. Our national interests, as far as the Antarctic is concerned, were identified in the Harries Report on Australia in the Third World as being as follows:

  1. to maintain Antarctica as an area Tree from strategic and /or political confrontation;
  2. to provide adequate protection for the Antarctic environment, having regard both to its unique qualities and its possible effect on our own region;
  3. to take advantage of the unique opportunities the region offers for scientific research;
  4. to be informed and consulted about development in a region geographically approximate to Australia; and
  5. ) to derive, if possible, economic benefit from the living and non-living resources of the Australian Antarctic Territory.

As the comments in paragraphs 1 99 to 2 1 0 of the Harries report constitute the most up-to-date comment on Australian policy and initiatives in the Antarctic, I seek leave to have those paragraphs incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

K: ANTARCTICA

  1. Australian policy towards Antarctica is based on the premise that the region is an important one in which we have a history of involvement. As a consequence Australia has sought to maintain an adequate level of activity there and, as one of the twelve original signatories of the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, to have its position respected and its voice heard in international forums concerned with Antarctic Affairs. Our policy interests are:

to maintain Antarctica as an area free from strategic and /or political con frontation

to provide adequate protection for the Antarctic environment, having regard both to its unique qualities and its possible effect on our own region;

to take advantage of the unique opportunities the region offers for scientific research;

to be informed and consulted about development in a region geographically proximate to Australia; and

to derive, if possible, economic benefit from the living and non-living resources of the Australian Antarctic Territory.

Australia has sought to protect these interests through policies directed towards:

the maintenance of sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory ( AAT);

the preservation of the Antarctic Treaty and the use of its consultative framework; and

the maintenance of an Austraiian presence and the carrying out of a program of scientific research and exploration activity in the AAT.

International Interest in Antarctic Resources 200. The Antarctic Treaty contains no provisions specifically governing the exploitation of the resources of Antarctica. A significant recent development has been a growing international perception that the resources of Antarctica may be both accessible and rich, and a corresponding growth of interest in the possibility of their exploitation. Interest in Antarctic resources has been shown by United Nations bodies, particularly the Food and Agriculture Organisation ( FAO). 201. The concern of some Third World countries that the Antarctic Treaty Parties may act soon to exploit the resources for their own benefit could precipitate proposals to internationalise Antarctica. The recognition of the ‘common heritage’ concept in relation to the deep sea-bed in the Law of the Sea Conference is likely to stimulate moves for application of a similar concept to Antarctica. There has already been evidence of such moves in both United Nations bodies and in the Non-Aligned Movement. These developments raise the basic questions of the longer term tenability of Australian sovereignty over the AAT; of the extent to which the maintenance of sovereignty over the AAT might jeopardise the continuance of the Antarctic Treaty, including its demilitarisation, peaceful uses and non-nuclearisation provisions; and of what arrangements in the Antarctic would best serve Australia ‘s wider foreign policy interests, including our concern about our relations with the other Treaty Parties and the Third World. 202. Third World interest in the living resources of the Southern Ocean has been mentioned at recent meetings of the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI). Moves have been made in COFI, supported by Third World countries, to give COFI an active role in the management of the living resources of the Southern Ocean. These have been opposed by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties on the grounds that, while FAO and COFI have an undeniably legitimate interest in the living marine resources of the Southern Ocean, their proper role is one of information-gathering and evaluation. Moreover, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties have a demonstrable role in the management of Antarctica and are currently engaged in the preparation of a regime for the conservation (and therefore the responsible management) of Antarctica ‘s marine living resources. In response to this, COFI has been prepared to modify its ambitions with regard to management. However, there is continuing pressure among the Third World countries in COFI and any failure or undue delay on the part of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties to conclude a responsible regime for the living resources of the Southern Ocean will undoubtedly result in further moves to have COFI more involved in the management of the living marine resources of the Southern Ocean. To date, the Antarctic Treaty partners have also been successful in heading off other Third World initiatives, including those by Sri Lanka aimed at persuading the United Nations General Assembly to adopt a resolution for the internationalisation of Antarctica and that country’s efforts in October 1976 to have included in the Declaration of the Non-Aligned Conference words to the effect that Antarctica was the common heritage of mankind. But it would seem likely that unless the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties can demonstrate a capacity to develop satisfactory resource regimes the dangers of Third World pressure building up will increase. 203. Australian policy must take account of the foregoing developments. However, other factors, which are difficult to assess, must also be taken into account. These include the outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference, the attitudes of the other Antarctic Treaty partners, the economic/ technological feasibility of exploiting Antarctic resources, and whether international pressures will strengthen among Third World countries in such a way as to require any change in our policy. Nevertheless, three possible policy approaches can be identified. They are:

a ) Strict Adherence to Sovereignty 204. Australia has so far adopted the position in discussions among Treaty partners that nothing should be done in relation to the resources question which is not basically compatible with our sovereignty. This has been possible in the past because there has been little substantial discussion of resources in the Treaty context; such a position becomes harder to sustain as interest in resources grows. 205. The obvious advantage of a policy of strict adherence to sovereignty is that, if it were sustainable in political and enforcement terms, it would allow Australia to determine all aspects of the development of the AAT and its off-shore areas. We would be able to regulate exploitation, in the same way that we now regulate the mining industry in Australia. Such a policy would also meet our environmental interests by enabling us to impose our own standards and controls. However, in view of the very limited international recognition of our claim, there must be doubt as to whether it would be sustainable as it becomes feasible to exploit the resources in the region. At the least we would need to allow access on generous terms. If the sovereignty issue became contentious, we would have to consider whether the price, in terms of our international standing and broader political and economic interests and relations, would make a policy of strict adherence to sovereignty worthwhile. Such a policy would be seen by many developing countries as running counter to their ambitions; it could also run counter to the interests of the United States, the Soviet Union, Japan and other non-claimant Treaty Parties.

Internationalization 206. Another approach would be to accept the internationalisation of Antarctica if it is proposed, or, indeed, to promote it. The premises of this approach would be that Australia cannot hope successfully to assert exclusive control of the resources of the AAT and its off-shore area, that increasing Third World pressure is inevitable, that the Treaty itself, based as it is on a privileged position for twelve (now thirteen’) countries, will not provide a long-term solution, and that a new and comprehensive international regime for Antarctica can be established. Australia might therefore anticipate this situation through a bold and generous initiative to propose the internationalisation of Antarctica and the preservation of Antarctic resources for all mankind. Australia’s acceptance or sponsorship of internationalisation, and our geographical posit-on, might enable us to retain a measure of political influence and a share of economic benefits (including possible use of Australian bases or entrepot facilities) under any eventual international regime for Antarctic resource exploitation. But this is essentially conjectural and any international ‘appreciation’ might be shortlived. However, to the extent that internationalisation could prevent Antarctica from becoming a scene of international discord, our defence interests would be served . It might also be conjectured that such a policy would enhance Australia’s international standing, particularly among the Third World, with consequent advantages in other areas of foreign policy interest. 207. Such an initiative, if successful, would, however, mean the end of Australian sovereignty over the AAT, and domestic political repercussions could be expected. It would be highly desirable- some might say a prerequisite- for there to be full consultation with out our Antarctic Treaty partners with the object of obtaining their agreement. We should, however, have no illusions that the other Treaty Powers would be likely to support such an approach; and we would incur the displeasure, and indeed the anger, of at least some of them, for advancing it. It would also mean giving up to the international community most of any economic benefits and the exclusive environmental controls which sovereignty, in theory, gives us. Whether the ‘spin-off’ Australia might derive from participating in an international regime for Antarctica would compensate, and whether international environmental controls would meet our requirements, could not be forecast at this stage.

To Build on the Antarctic Treaty 208. Another course- and the course in fact followed in current policy- is to seek to work within the Antarctic Treaty framework to develop new regimes to handle resource questions, together with the related questions of conservation and protection of the environment. In pursuing this course our basic objective is to derive as many as possible of the benefits of sovereignty rights over resources, including the living marine resources within Australia ‘s future 200 mile off-shore zone, without sacrificing our other policy objectives. In the context of the Treaty it is necessary to negotiate on the basis of sovereignty; but, in the recognition that the full exercise of sovereignty is unlikely to be sustainable, we have accepted that some flexibility is necessary in order to encourage others to participate with Australia in promoting mutually beneficial regimes for the exploitation of living resources and, at a later date, non-living resources. 209. The draft regime for Antarctic marine living resources, which is currently being negotiated by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties, aims at the long-term conservation of these resources, thus ensuring their preservation as a future world food source. The establishment of such a regime by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties can be presented as a responsible action taken in the broader interests of the international community. 210. The Committee has felt obliged to address itself to Australia’s interest and policies in relation to Antarctica because they clearly have Third World dimensions which could become more important wilh time. However, it does not feel called upon to make any recommendation in terms of the options canvassed.

The thirteen Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties are Argentina. Australia. Chile. France, Japan. New Zealand, Norway. Poland. South Africa, the USSR, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Senator PUPLICK:

-As I said, the subject of Antarctica does not come before the Parliament very much for debate. It is a great shame that this is the case because a large number of issues arise from the Antarctic policy that need to be considered. I could illustrate that by indicating the titles of a number of articles that have appeared in various publications in recent months which raise issues of policy which the Australian Government needs to consider. For instance, in the Bulletin of March this year a series of articles appeared entitled ‘The Antarctic: Still Out in the Cold’ by Denis O’Brien. On 19 September 1979 the Australian ran an article called ‘Polar oil war looms. Australia’s claim angers diplomats’. On the same day the Sydney Morning Herald published an article entitled ‘Demands on Antarctic. Australia wants resource rights’. The Australian Financial Review of 1 November 1979 published an article entitled ‘High stakes in Antarctic power play’. The same journal, on 23 April 1980, published an article entitled ‘Canberra meeting may not save the Southern Ocean ‘.

Ecos, which is the journal of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, published an article in August 1979 entitled ‘Towards wise use of Antarctic krill’. The Australian Outlook, Volume 32 No. 2 of August 1978, published an article entitled ‘Territorial Sovereignty in the Status of Antarctica’ by D. W. Greig. An article by Philip Grenard entitled Problems loom in Antarctica’ appeared in the Bulletin of 25 September 1979. The Australian Foreign Affairs Review of February 1980 put forward a very optimistic point of view in an article entitled ‘Antarctica- a continent of international harmony?’. Yet not long before that the journal Triad of summer 1978 published an article by Lieutenant-Colonel I. C. Teague entitled ‘Scope for Defence aid in Antarctica’. The Pacific Defence Reporter in February 1 979 was running a series of articles entitled ‘A Limited Antarctic Warfare Capability for Australia’. The fact that there are such extraordinary divergences of views and that there are people writing in defence journals about the Antarctic as if there were a likelihood, or in some areas even a prospect, of people coming to blows in the Antarctic or of the area becoming an area of armed conflict is -

Senator Wriedt:

– Disgraceful.

Senator PUPLICK:

-As Senator Wriedt says, it is an absolute disgrace to the nation. When one sees articles by militarists and lieutenantcolonels of one description or another raising the prospect of these military confrontations in the Antarctic, it is a pity that the Parliament has not had time to discuss these issues in any great depth. In November 1979 the Government presented a report of the Antarctic Research Policy Advisory Committee, once again indicating the size and scope of activities being undertaken in the Antarctic. This Parliament ought to be turning its attention to that. Both Senator Sibraa and Senator Tate have mentioned the recently concluded conference on the preservation of Antarctic marine living resources, to which I was a delegate. I must say that Mr Ralph Jacobi of the other place and I had the great honour and privilege of signing the final act of that conference on behalf of the Australian delegation. It advances by a long way the measures which we are to undertake in the Antarctic. The Antarctic comprises an area of 14 million square kilometres of which we claim approximately three-sevenths.

The Bill, as has been stated, gives domestic application to measures that were agreed as long ago as 1964. There are three types of measures. We agree to undertake things in regard to specially protected species which may be declared where there is evidence that the survival of the species is under threat and where the collection of these species can be undertaken only for compelling scientific reasons. There are specially protected areas which may be declared to protect delicate habitats or the breeding grounds of birds or seals. There are sites of special scientific interest which are reserves declared for their outstanding value as natural laboratories for scientific inquiries. Such areas are declared on the advice of the international scientific community. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list taken from the agreed measures under the Convention on the Preservation and Conservation of Wildlife and Living Resources. The document indicates the two specially protected species, the 17 specially protected areas and the seven sites of special scientific interest in the Antarctic.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

AGREED MEASURES

Specially Protected Species:

All species of genus ARCTOCEPHALUS: Fur Seals

OMMATOPHOCA ROSS: Ross Seal.

Specially Protected Areas:

Taylor Rookery, Mac. Robertson Land.

Rookery Island, Holme Bay.

Ardery Island and Odbert Island, Budd Coast.

Salrina Island, Balleny Islands.

Beaufort Island, Ross Sea.

Cape Hallett, Victoria Land.

Dion Islands, Marguerite Bay. Antarctic Peninsula.

Green Island, Berthelot Islands, Antarctic Peninsula.

  1. Cape Shirreff, Livingston Island, South Shetland Islands.

Moe Island, South Orkney Islands.

Lynch Island, South Orkney Islands.

Southern Powell and adjacent islands, South Orkney Islands.

  1. Coppermine Peninsula, Robert Island.

  2. Litchfield Island, Arthur Harbour, Palmer Archip

Sites of Special Scientific Interest:

. Cape Royds, Ross Island.

Arrival Heights, Hut Point Peninsula, Ross Island.

Barwick Valley, Victoria Land.

Cape Crazier, Ross Island.

Fildes Peninsula, King George Island, South Shetland Islands.

Byres Peninsula, Livingston Island, South Shetland Islands.

Haswell Island.

Senator PUPLICK:

-I thank the House. Clause 19 of the Bill provides a wide range of offences which persons shall not commit in terms of interfering with the ecosystem, ecology and wildlife of the Antarctic. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard clause 1 9 of the Bill, which indicates what those offences are.

Leave granted.

The clause read as follows-

Offences relating to the environment

  1. ( 1 ) A person shall not-

kill, take, injure or otherwise interfere with a native bird or native mammal in the Antarctic;

gather, collect, injure or otherwise interfere with a native plant in the Antarctic:

bring into the Antarctic an animal, plant, virus, bacterium, yeast or fungus that is not indigenous to the Antarctic;

) enter a specially protected area;

land or drive an aircraft or drive a vehicle, in a specially protected area:

f) enter a site of special scientific interest; or

do anything in a site of special scientific interest otherwise than as authorised by the plan of management relating to the site.

Penalty: $2,000 or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.

) A person shall not, in the Antarctic-

fly an aircraft in such a manner as to disturb a concentration of birds or seals;

land or drive an aircraft, or drive a vehicle, within 200 metres of a concentration of birds or seals;

detonate an explosive within 300 metres of a concentration of birds or seals;

discharge a firearm within 300 metres of a concentration of birds or seals:

while on foot disturb a concentration ofbirds or seals during any period while they are breeding;

f) cause or permit a dog to run free; or

cause or permit to escape from his control or the control of any other person an animal, plant, virus, bacterium, yeast or fungus that is not indigenous to the Antarctic and has been brought into the Antarctic by virtue of a permit or to be used as food.

Penalty: $2,000 or imprisonment for 1 2 months, or both.

Sub-sections (1) and (2) do not apply in relation to any action if-

the action in question was done in a case of extreme emergency, which may include circumstances involving possible loss of human life or injury of persons or the safety of a vessel or aircraft:

in the case of action of a kind referred to in paragraph ( 1 ) (c)- that the animal (not being a live domestic fowl), plant, virus, bacterium, yeast or fungus, as the case may be, was brought into the Antarctic to be used as food;

except in the case of action of a kind referred to in paragraph (1 ) (e), ( 1 ) (g), (2) (f) or (2) (g)-that the action in question was done in accordance with a permit or in accordance with an authority of another Contracting Party: or

in the case of action of a kind referred to in paragraph (2) (a), (2) (b), (2) (c) or (2) (e)-that the action in question was reasonably necessary for the establishment, supply or operation of a station.

In thissection- concentration’ means-

in relation to birds- an identifiable group of more than 20 birds; and

in relation to seals- an identifiable group of more than10 seals: permit’, when used as a noun, includes all conditions to which a permit is subject.

Senator PUPLICK:

-I thank the House. There are two other prohibitions which will interest honourable senators opposite, particularly Senator McLaren. One is that the Convention, as contained in Annex C to the Antarctic Treaty, provides:

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article IX (3) of these Agreed Measures, no living poultry shall be brought into the Treaty Area after 1st July, 1966.

Senator McLaren:

– That was a very wise decision.

Senator PUPLICK:

– I presume that it is an attempt to prevent Newcastle disease reaching the wildlife of the Antarctic. The second is a lengthy prohibition on the importation into the Antarctic of dogs which have not been innoculated against certain diseases specified in Annex D of the Treaty. Although dogs are still used in the Antarctic, I understand that most of them are bred there for that purpose.

This Bill gives domestic application to a treaty to which Australia has been a signatory for almost 20 years. The convention of the Preservation and Conservation of Wildlife and Living Resources and the ‘Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora’ are important international documents. It is important that Australia has at last taken this step to give effect to those agreed measures. This Bill is therefore very much to be welcomed as part of the Government’s responsibility in the Antarctic and very much to be welcomed as giving further evidence of the concern which this Government has for issues of conservation and environment protection.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I thank honourable senators for their support of this Bill, which has the support of the whole Senate. The only additional comment I wish to make is that I have noted Senator Tate’s request of the Government, which I will see is forwarded to the appropriate Minister.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2804

WAR GRAVES BILL 1980

Second Readings

Debate resumed.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– It is my intention to confine my remarks to the War Graves Bill 1 980. We received copies of the second reading speech only a short time ago. The Bill was introduced about 25 minutes ago. Again I would like to say that it cannot be truly said that this is a proper House of review. I think having a second reading speech of a Bill incorporated in Hansard and proceeding almost immediately to a full debate on the Bill gives the lie to the suggestion that this is a House of review. We have seen that happen on many occasions in the last week. The incorporated second reading speech of the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) states:

The purpose of this Bil! is to give statutory recognition to the establishment, care and maintenance of Australian war graves and to create the position of Director of War Graves.

There are one or two things that I want to say in response to this Bill. The second reading speech also states:

The scope of the Bill is limited to the purposes to which I have referred, namely the creation of a statutory office of Director of War Graves. The function of the Director shall be, under the Secretary to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, to administer the Department ‘s War graves activities.

One question I would ask the Minister is whether the Bill enables the Director to provide funds to country sub-branches of the Returned Services League to enable its members to care for the graves of their fallen comrades. In recent months, the problem of caring for the graves of eligible Australian Service dead, particularly in country cemeteries, has been brought to my attention. Those maintaining the graves are entitled to assistance from the Office of Australian War Graves. I ask the Minister whether the Director, the statutory officer provided for in the Bill, can make assistance available so that it is not left to members of the local RSL to do all the manual work in caring for war graves in country areas. When I made inquiries I found that once a year in South Australia someone comes from Adelaide and polishes the plaques on the graves; but in other places the local RSL or the sexton of the cemetery is given money to purchase a lawn mower to keep the area in some form of order. This does not apply to all cemetries. That is why I ask: Does this Bill enable the Director to make moneys available? From discussions I have had particularly with the Mannum sub-branch of the Returned Services League in South Australia it is clear that it would be happy if, say $200, $300 or $400 were made available annually to local subbranches so that they could pay somebody a small fee to care for the graves of their fallen comrades. I put that request to the Minister. The other matter to which I want to draw the Minister’s attention is set out in the second reading speech and it refers to clause 3. The Minister stated:

The person appointed to the office will be responsible, under the Secretary to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, for carrying out the activities of the Department in relation to war graves in Australia and overseas.

My concern is that the Director is in fact responsible to the Secretary to the Department of Veterans ‘ Affairs. In my view it would be much better if the Director were responsible to the Minister who, in turn, is responsible to the Parliament. There may be some good reasons why this action, which is outlined in the second reading speech, has been taken. Because this organisation will be a statutory body I am of the opinion that the Minister should accept any responsibility if this Act is not fully complied with.

With respect to the matter of the Director having the responsibility for activities in relation to war graves overseas, I say in passing that last year on Anzac Day when visiting the German Democratic Republic I had the honour to be invited by Mr Morris, who is the Australian Ambassador in East Berlin, to represent the Australian Parliament at the Anzac ceremony in the Potsdam war cemetery. My wife accompanied me on this visit. It was a very impressive ceremony and I want to pay tribute to the people in the office of the Department of Foreign Affairs in East Berlin who, knowing that I was in that country, invited me to represent the Australian Parliament at that ceremony. On a tour of that cemetery I found headstones commemorating 1 1 Australian ex-servicemen from the First World War. When speaking to my colleague, Senator O ‘Byrne, on my return he reminded me that during World War II he was a prisoner of war at a camp which was about 10 miles away from the Potsdam war cemetery. He was quite interested to know that not only did I visit the Potsdam cemetery but also the Cacilienhoff Castle where the Potsdam War Agreement was signed. It was an interesting experience for both my wife and me to see what had been done there. I would like to pay tribute to the East German people for the way in which they look after that war cemetery. I hope that all nations continue to look after the sections of their cemeteries which contain graves of Australian servicemen whether they be from World War I or World War II.

I wish to raise a couple of other matters but I will leave them until the Committee stage. I hope that the Minister will be able to inform me whether some proviso will be allowed to the Director to make money available for country cemeteries? I referred to one such cemetery but there must be many others. Money could be made available to the local RSL sub-branches to carry out maintenance of war graves. I am sure it would not cost the Government as much if a local person were given a few hundred dollars a year. This is preferable to having to pay somebody to travel all day- it is only about 60 miles from Adelaide to Mannum- to maintain war graves. But other cemeteries would be much further away. It would be much cheaper in my view if this were done. It would be welcomed by the local people if they could get some remuneration for carrying out the work themselves.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– The Australian War Memorial Bill is a very important piece of legislation because it relates to one of our major national institutions. It in fact perpetuates the Australian War Memorial and I believe in many ways strengthens it and its administration. The Act will create a council to administer the War Memorial and to oversee its collection. The collection in the Australian War Memorial is one of the most important of its kind anywhere in the world, one of which I think this country can be very proud and one of which those people who have been in charge of that collection over many years can also be very proud. I know that a great deal of work is now going on to ensure that that collection is properly displayed and conserved for Australians in the future so that they might be better aware of the very important traditions and heritage of the nation. I also mention in passing that the Australian War Memorial is the most popular tourist attraction in the national capital.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Deservedly.

Senator KNIGHT:

-That is right; deservedly so, as Senator Baume said. Each year about three quarter of a million people visit the Memorial. They are mostly Australians and about 70,000 are school children. The Memorial has special importance for Australia and, of course, for Canberra as the national capital.

The recent report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory which inquired into the future of the tourist industry in the Australian Capital Territory laid considerable stress on the need for Commonwealth departments and national institutions to make available to the public information about their activities. In this case, I refer to the very important collections of the War Memorial. The War Memorial is already established, as I mentioned a moment ago, as a major tourist attraction. It has many standing displays and facilities. I make the point in this debate that quite an urgent need is now developing for improvements in facilities at the

Australian War Memorial. As I see it, there is a need for improving facilities by the provision of a theatrette and classrooms where, for example, some of the 70,000 school children who visit the War Memorial each year might go to be informed directly of the role of the Memorial and the traditions and heritage which it commemorates rather than simply walking around and looking at the displays.

There is a need for some work to be done on the entrance foyer and for improvements to public amenities at the War Memorial. For example, improvements need to be made to facilities for scholars because the Memorial contains a great deal of material on which research is constantly being done by scholars. It is important that the facilities for those scholars working at the War Memorial should be as good as possible. At this stage I think there is some need for upgrading of those facilities. I have mentioned only a few of the areas that require some work. This is a matter that I and others have taken up with the Government. Whilst I think this is very important legislation which, in its own way, strengthens the War Memorial and its administration and emphasises its significance to Australia, one hopes that action can be taken to ensure that the displays and the facilities for the public and for scholars working at the War Memorial will be upgraded. I hope that the Government will give very close attention to those matters.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– The Senate is debating two Bills cognately, the War Graves Bill and the Australian War Memorial Bill. My colleague, Senator McLaren, has made some comments on the War Graves Bill on behalf of the Opposition and I endorse his remarks. It is of the utmost importance to our nation that we take proper steps to preserve the memory of our comrades who fell in wars defending democracy and defending the peace and security of our nation. I shall make just a few remarks about the Australian War Memorial Bill. I welcome the introduction of this Bill because it seems to me that its measures provide for better management and administration of the major memorial to those who fell fighting for this country- the Australian War Memorial.

I speak as a pacifist when I make these remarks. As a pacifist, it seems to me that the Australian War Memorial is a great symbol of the tragedy and the waste of war. That is always the impression it makes on me and I hope on all Australians and overseas visitors who visit the War Memorial. It is not a memorial glorifying war in itself, although it properly glorifies the acts of many men and women who fought in wars. It is to me a memorial that reminds us of the tragedy and waste of war and should serve as a great and overwhelming caution against any future actions by our nation which could lead us into warfare again. Therefore, we are happy to see the Government taking steps to improve the administration and management of the resources available to the War Memorial. The Opposition has no argument with the Bill.

I will make a few points on the resources available to the Australian War Memorial. Senator Knight has mentioned in some detail some aspects of the management of this memorial which need improvement. It seems to me and to the Federal Opposition that the resources available to the War Memorial are too meagre at this stage for the memorial to fulfil what the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) referred to in his second reading speech as the expression of the vision of that great historian C. E. W. Bean. We share the vision of that great historian with regard to the War Memorial, but it seems to us that the vision is not being realised with the present difficulties being experienced in regard to conservation, storage and training of persons to conserve the great and important collection of the War Memorial. As I speak, I am aware that a new storage and conservation facility has been established in the suburb of Mitchell in the Australian Capital Territory. It is a very advanced storage facility. I understand that all sorts of advanced technology has been introduced into that facility so that the question of the conservation of the collection of the Australian War Memorial is not the problematical one that it has been recently. Nonetheless, there are still some difficulties despite the establishment of this new facility for the conservation of the War Memorial ‘s collection.

During a recent discussion with officers representing the War Memorial in Senate Estimates Committee E, I inquired about the level of staff available to the memorial, the wages of staff and unfilled positions. It seems to me that there is still a very serious shortage of trained conservators available to the War Memorial. At the moment there are ten unfilled positions. These unfilled positions range over a variety of levels of work but there is, clearly, a need for the War Memorial to have more trained staff mainly in the conservation area. During this Estimates committee discussion it was also pointed out that the cutback in funds available to the War Memorial has inhibited its educational function. For example, recently there was a very important conservators conference in Perth. The War

Memorial was unable to send staff to that conference to have the benefit of the discussions with regard to the conservation of the collection. If the War Memorial is to be the important educational institution to which Senator Knight referred and is to continue to be the major tourist attraction of the Australian Capital Territory, I believe it deserves more resources, in terms of staff and financial allocation for salaries than it has at present. I make a plea to the Government to make such resources available.

One of the reasons the War Memorial has so many unfilled positions for conservators and so forth is that in Australia we have been extremely lax in training people in these skills. There is a course currently at the Canberra College of Advanced Education to train conservators not only to work in the War Memorial, but also on the other great national collections in the National Library and National Gallery and it is to be hoped, if the Government makes money available, in the many regional galleries which also have very important historical artistic collections which are being destroyed through lack of funds to conserve them and through lack of trained conservators to work on them.

I do not want to digress to deal with the general question of our national and regional art collections. To get back to the national collection of the War Memorial which is the greatest collection of its kind in the world, we need more people being trained in the job of conserving and preserving these collections. The course at the CAE I understand is a very good start in this direction. I have been informed that the training is adequate to the needs of the War Memorial. However, at the same time we need to attract the best of overseas conservators who have had the vast experience that the students coming from the CAE will not have had. In order to do that I believe the Government should review its staff ceilings so that more positions can be made available. But, more importantly, I think the level of salaries of staff should be reviewed so that the War Memorial will be in a position to compete successfully in attracting those experienced and trained conservators it needs to do the job, which we all agree on a bipartisan basis it is very important be done; and that is to preserve and maintain our important collection at the War Memorial so that Australians of the future and overseas visitors will have access to it.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

– I will not take much time of the Senate. Upon listening to the debate on these two Bills, the War Graves Bill 1980 and the Australian War Memorial Bill 1980, it comes to mind that, whilst there are some merits in the expenditure of funds for war graves and the expenditure of funds on the Australian War Memorial, there are walking around Australia today thousands of ex-servicemen who, for all sorts of reasons, are carrying memories of war, who are heading for the grave but who have never received any recognition. There are thousands of men who, in their teens, went off to World War II, for example. At that stage they would have received injury from all sorts of means, whether it be from enemy action or otherwise. But because there was a job to be done and because they were not malingerers, and could never be described as such, they carried on doing their duty and never reported their illness or injury.

In their older years they or, in some cases, their widows- the ex-servicemen having passed on- are no longer able to justify any claim to consideration according to the regulations laid down by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Whilst it is all very nice to talk about these sorts of things, I think at times some consideration should be given to some amelioration of the Repatriation Act so that some of these ex-service people who are still alive in Australia can obtain some form of justice.

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

(3.34)- I thank the Opposition for the way in which it has dealt with the cognate debate on these two very important Bills, the War Graves Bill 1980 and the Australian War Memorial Bill 1980. I have noted the comments of Senator Ryan and Senator Knight with regard to the Australian War Memorial. I will draw the attention of the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) to Senator Ryan’s comments with regard to further storage and training and staff ceilings, and seek from him and the Director any information that is able to be provided.

Senator McLaren raised some questions with regard to the War Graves Bill. As he stated, the statutory Office of the Director of War Graves is one that shall be functioned through the Secretary to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. He raised the question as to why a decision had been made that reporting and functioning be effected through the Secretary. I am not aware of any great matters that arose in this regard in the past, so this will have been the way in which the Director reported and functioned. I draw attention to the fact that there is the requirement for the Secretary to the Department to prepare and furnish an annual report to the Minister for presentation to the Parliament. The War Graves Bill contains a provision that requires this to be done.

The Secretary to the Department also reports on defence service homes, on the Repatriation Act. It seems that it is appropriate that the report on the War Graves Act be made to the Parliament in this way. Senator McLaren also asked about superannuation rights. I draw attention to the fact that the people concerned are statutory employees. There are full superannuation rights available to them through the contributory scheme. I think that explanation will satisfy the matter raised by Senator McLaren.

The other matter raised by Senator McLaren relating to war graves was the care that is given to those graves in some country, or outlying areas, by RSL branches. He sought information as to whether there is any provision for funds for those services. I am advised that under the Bill there are no specific funds that can be used to provide funds to RSL branches, but there is a means by which a contract can be arranged for the care of graves. In certain circumstances, where there are large numbers of graves, local contracts can be arranged. I am advised that there would be no reason why an RSL branch could not become a contractor under those circumstances and in that case there may be the provision of funds where there were a number of graves which required attention.

Mr President, those were the matters raised. I thank the Senate for its support of the Bills. I think that all Australians have a sense of history and are interested in the condition of and the way in which we administer our war graves and our War Memorial. I think that these Bills, once enacted, will enable this to be done more satisfactorily.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

In Committee

War Graves Bill 1980

The Bill.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I thank the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) for her reply. I am sure that many of the Returned Services League sub-branches will be very interested to know that they could become contractors, or could be recognised as contractors, if they so desire to care for war graves in country cemeteries. I will draw that to the attention of the secretaries of the many branches who have approached me. In reply to my question about the Director being responsible to the Secretary to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the Minister said that this was also the case under the War

Service Homes Agreement Act. I am concerned in that members of parliament do not like to be put in the position where they have to be very critical of a public servant, and it appears to me that under this Act, if things about which members of parliament are concerned do not happen, they will have to stand up in this place and be critical of the departmental Secretary rather than the Minister. I suppose that we could frame our criticism, when we make it, by saying that it is not intended for the Secretary but that it is intended for the Minister. We would have to be very careful of that. I think we had an occasion here today when one of our members was criticised by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) for having directed his criticism at a public servant when, in actual fact, the criticism was intended for the Minister himself.

I turn now to clause 5 of the Bill which provides for the appointment of the Director of War Graves. Clause 5(1) states:

The Director shall be appointed by the GovernorGeneral.

I ask the Minister whom the Government has in mind to recommend to the Governor-General for the position of Director? Clause 9 of the Bill relates to the termination of the office of Director and states: 9. ( 1 ) The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of the Director for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity.

  1. If the Director-

    1. engages in paid employment outside his duties of his office without the approval of the Minister:
    2. is absent from duty except on leave granted by the Minister for 14 consecutive days or for 28 days in any 12 months; or
    3. becomes bankrupt or applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounds with his creditors or makes an assignment of his remuneration for their benefit, the Governor-General shall terminate his appointment.

I would like to know whether, under this Bill, a politician in receipt of a pension would be eligible for appointment as Director as set out in the Bill?

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

(3.39)- I have no announcement to make as to who would be considered for the appointment of Director. The Billlays down the requirements for the termination of the appointment. I have nothing further to add to that. It is the normal provision that applies in the case of statutory offices. I am not in any position to speculate on who would be eligible for appointment or who would be likely to be appointed. An announcement would be made on those matters by the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs ( Mr Adermann) at the appropriate time.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– Is the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) saying that it is up to the Minister for Veteran ‘s Affairs to interpret the War Graves Act as to whether the Government can recommend an ex-member of parliament to the office of Director of War Graves? Surely what I want to know must be spelt out somewhere in the Act? Will a person who is in receipt of a parliamentary pension be disqualified from being appointed as Director?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE (Victoria - Minister for Social Security) (3.41) - There would be no exclusion from an appointment of this nature of a person in receipt of any Commonwealth superannuation or other pension. The Government could appoint such a person if it so desired.

Bill agreed to.

Australian War Memorial Bill 1980

Bill agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Readings

Bills (on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) read a third time.

page 2809

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

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

- Mr President, I suggest that the Customs Tariff Validation Bill1980 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1980 be debated cognately. If that course is agreed to, the Opposition’s amendment can be debated during the cognate debate and then moved when the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill is called on.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– That course is acceptable to the Opposition. I do not intend to speak for very long on these two Bills. The Customs Tariff Validation Bill validates, in advance, changes which may be made to Customs duties between now and the end of December. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill authorises retrospectively the various changes to the Schedule which have been made since, I think, last October. It affects a number of matters on which the Industries Assistance Commission had reported and on which the Government had subsequently taken action. Broadly the changes are in line with the recommendations made by the IAC, but in the case of wine and spirituous beverages, about which I will say a few words later, the IAC recommendation was not followed.

The amendment I will move formally when the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill is before the Senate expresses the opinion that a parliamentary standing committee ought to be established to peruse and make recommendations on changes to excise and customs. The practice until now has been that the responsible Minister, either in isolation or in association with other Ministers, presents the Parliament with a fait accompli. As we all know, a decision by the Executive is not subject to further scrutiny in the Parliament unless the Executive does not have the numbers in the Senate. Of course, those decisions are not always subject to further scrutiny then either. The experience between 1973 and 1975 showed that there is a stone wall in the Senate. In those days, the Senate certainly did not see its role as being one which may make marginal improvements to administration. It saw its role as being to prevent, to frustrate, the enactment of the policies of the elected government.

Therefore, although plenty of legislation was rejected then it was done not in a constructive way, but in a totally destructive way. The people who adopted that wholly destructive approach between 1973 and 1975 have since retreated into their shells. Therefore, these customs tariff changes, matters on which many honourable members and senators could express a valid point of view, are never subjected effectively to the scrutiny of anyone outside of the Ministry. It was for that reason that Mr Hurford, on behalf of the Opposition, moved in the other place that a committee be set up and I will be moving a similar motion in the Senate shortly.

I wish now to give an example, by no means the only one available, of the way in which the Government murders the English language. Mr Fraser is, of course, a prime exponent of that art. He refers not to permanent Public Service positions but to positions of permanency in the Public Service. I believe that the Government’s propensity to write nonsense statements into second reading speeches is increasing. A very good example was provided by Senator Carrick on 7 April in announcing the $80 a tonne subsidy for domestic consumption of liquified petroleum gas. He said that the primary objective was to direct liquid petroleum gas to its premium end uses, that is, as a petrochemical feedstock and an automotive fuel. Thus, in the very sentence in which he extols the payment of a subsidy of $80 a tonne for domestic consumption he adds that the Government’s objective is to direct LPG to its premium end uses. That kind of doublespeak and sloppy English is creeping into Government second reading speeches more and more. The comment that caught my eye in the second reading speech on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1980, which related to tariff protection for wine and the excise on brandy, is:

The Government considered that it was not an appropriate time to reduce levels of protection to wine producers and grape growers as it could hamper their efforts to adjust production to market requirements.

That is quite a valid point of view- that it was not an appropriate time to reduce levels of protection- and doubtless very defensible. However, my point is that the Government, far from assisting the industry in its efforts to adjust production to market requirements, as it claims, is insulating the industry from market pressures. That sentence provides a classic example of doublespeak, in which the Government proclaims that its action is doing one thing when it is doing precisely the opposite. That is not to pass judgment on the issue itself, just on the lamentable and increasing practice of members of the Government, in second reading and other speeches, to indulge in doublespeak and newspeak, sloppy misuse of the English language and misrepresentation of facts. The real danger is that ultimately the Government will lose the capacity- if it has not done so already- to draw any distinction between fantasy and reality.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I assume, despite the little lecture on the English language that has been given by Senator Walsh, that I may thank the Opposition for supporting these measures. I understand that there is to be an expression of opinion in relation to the second Bill, the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, and a proposal that a parliamentary committee should be established, but I will deal with that matter when it is proposed during the Committee stage. Senator Walsh has expressed concern about the use of the English language. I suppose that is a change from his usual lecture on economic policy. Perhaps we should be thankful that he is complaining only about the use of English and not about economic policy as well. I hope that Bill will have a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2811

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-I move:

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Georges:

– I second the amendment.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The Government is opposed to the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2811

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 May, on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Opposition protests most vehemently and strongly against the manner in which this important piece of legislation is being dealt with by the Parliament. It was introduced in the last couple of days in the House of Representatives. In the dying hours of the Senate this vital piece of legislation, probably one of the most important pieces of legislation before the Parliament, is being rushed through without adequate debate and understanding by the Australian community of its implications. It is indicative of the churlish attitude that the Government takes towards any system of equity in the whole political process in this country. It underpins the Government’s attitude to the way in which the democratic processes should operate. This legislation is being rushed through the Parliament without adequate debate. It will mean a great deal in the fashioning of the election to be held some time between now and the end of this year.

We have all been aware for a considerable period of the inadequacies, failings and deficiencies of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Bill, which seeks to remove any limitations on spending and to introduce a sky-is-the-limit concept concerning electoral expenditure by political parties and political candidates, is being dealt with in a very cavalier fashion by the Parliament under the leadership of the Fraser Government.

The Government seeks to repeal sections of the existing Act and then to establish an inquiry after the event. That inquiry, like so many inquiries by this Government, obviously will be an inquiry in name only and will not have any effect on the important election which is coming up in 1 980. This is an indication of the way in which this Government operates and the way in which it seeks to maintain its hegemony, its domination, of the political processes. Its attitude is: We have the power, we have the media and we have the resources. We do not intend to share the power, the media and the resources’. Obviously it will maintain the inequities which have been with us for a considerable period. It is because the Opposition recognises the inequities and the unfairness of the existing system that I propose to move an amendment on behalf of the Opposition. I move:

I think we are entitled to ask: Why can we not have such an inquiry during the three-month period in which the Fraser Government is putting this Parliament to rest? This parliamentary session will end this week- an unprecedented step. Twelve weeks will elapse before the Parliament reassembles. In that time we could hold a public inquiry in which the various interest groups in Australia could examine the way in which election funding is taking place, the way in which the process has been distorted as a result of the unfairness of the existing practices and the way in which this Government has the greatest share of spending so far as elections are concerned.

I do not wish to challenge the recognition of the urgent need for electoral reform. The events in Tasmania give sufficient reasons for that. Challenges were made in that Senate because of some inadequacies in the legislative processes in that State. But those inadequacies have been recognised for some time. Indeed, they were recognised by the Australian Labor Party some five years ago when it sought the approval of the

Parliament for electoral reform. That would have avoided the necessity for the panic legislation which the Parliament is now consideringthe bungled legislation to which the Parliament is now asked to give assent. This is the way in which this Government proceeds. It is not unlike the red queen in Alice in Wonderland, who wanted to have the verdict first and then the trial. That is the way in which this Government is approaching this piece of legislation.

The issues are substantial and important. They are not unique to Australia. Many other democratic countries have taken steps when confronted with similar problems of electoral expenditure and accountability. They have looked at different approaches, and different solutions have been found in different countries. But what has been adopted after investigations in countries similar to Australia is not what is contained in this legislation. The Opposition believes, as indeed most of the other democratic countries believe, that there should be a limit to electoral funding and expenditure and that there should be a disclosure of sources of funding. Surely no government should be afraid to accept those basic principles. They are basic, essential principles for the maintenance of a functioning democracy. Surely it has to be accepted that the way in which elections are financed is fundamental to the whole way in which the process should operate.

If parties do not have equal access or adequate access to resources, it is clear that the system is lopsided. I suggest that that situation exists in this country. One party has unlimited access to unlimited funds and resources, and because it has that edge on every other political party it is able to wield excessive influence in the moulding of public opinion and in the functioning of the parliamentary process. The conservative parties also have greater access to the media. In fact, the media comprise one of the institutions that prop up this Government and its philosophy and ideology. It is because of that position in our society that this Government is able to win majority support. Those who want to put up a different philosophy, a different policy, suffer as a result of the substantial use of resources by the major parties. The smaller parties are at a disadvantage in this part of the political process.

Anyone who knows anything about politics in this country would know that conservative parties are and have been the most corrupt of all political parties. They are corrupt in the sense that there is no disclosure of funds and there is no indication of how they are able to raise such large sums of money. Obviously it is from sources that are associated with it in its commercial arranagements. We have only to look at the end result to know that funds flow into the conservative parties in greater volume than they flow to any of the other political parties in our country. Nobody knows about the deals, subsidies and slush funds which clearly find their way to the conservative parties for election purposes. I do not suggest that individual members of the conservative parties are corrupt but I do suggest that the conservative parties are corrupt insofar as they receive funds from unnamed sources and are not prepared, as the 1975 debate showed, to have public disclosure of them.

The Opposition makes the assertion that the Liberal and National Country Parties are the parties of slush funds in this country and that legislation which seeks to remove any limitations upon the collection of funds is something that should be the concern not only of the Parliament but also of every democrat within Australia. There should be public accountability about the source of funds, and equity in the way in which political parties operate, depending upon the source and the degree of support they have within the community. There ought to be principles of fair play and there ought to be an adequate share of access to the media. But there is not, as I will seek to show subsequently.

Everybody knows that the media prefers the conservative parties because it shares the same philsosphical position and because it is part of the economic power group within our society. Everybody knows that the media is prejudiced against the Labor Party and against the Labor movement. Everybody knows that the media is prejudiced against small parties. Everybody knows that the media is prejudiced against any radical thought. We only have to define what radical thought is about to appreciate what that means because radical thoughts inevitably start from a small base and if they have any substance at all they subsequently attract majority support. Public access to an examination of those thoughts is difficult when the media and the conservative parties have this domination in the whole political process.

Everyone knows that the big spenders can win because they are the big spenders. Everyone knows that it is the Liberal Party and the National Country Party which are the big spenders in the whole political process. Those of us who are involved in the political processes are aware that the very avaricious sectors of our economy, such as the multi-nationals and the mining sector, have been and are involved in funding the conservative parties. We do not have to look at many countries to appreciate that the big corporate and big business sectors have been involved in political scandals in Japan, Italy and in many other countries where funds have flowed into political parties as a result of commercial deals involving the party in power. We would be fooling ourselves if we did not realise that this is happening in this country. For example, I know, but I cannot prove it, because of the arrangements that are made between big corporations and political parties, that the Shell oil company for years and years financed the political activities of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. I know that some of the tobacco companies finance political parties, groups within political parties and struggles even within the trade union movement. Of course it is this aspect of our society that needs public ventilation and public debate.

It is true that the Government might have the numbers in this place to put this legislation through. But I suggest that it does not have the argument. The Government might have the numbers but this does not entitle it to believe that it can win the argument. There must be limits and there must be disclosure because we are talking about a fundamental principle of the democratic process, that is about the large sums of money that are spent in Federal elections. Let us look at the 1977 election. I want to stress the need for the limits that should be contained in this legislation. A total of $2,179,340 was spent on radio and television broadcasts alone in 1977 by political parties. These figures have been obtained from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal annual report for 1977-78. Of this total $481,602 was spent on radio and $1.697,738 was spent on television. The regulation of this money is surely a problem in itself.

What is of more interest is who spent the money. In respect of radio the Government parties spent 64 per cent and the Australian Labor Party 28.4 per cent and that, of course, is much more than a two to one ratio. For television the Government parties spent 68.7 per cent and the Labor Party spent 36.3 per cent. Again, this is nearly a two to one ratio. In cash terms that means that the Government spent $308,226 on radio to the Australian Labor Party’s $136,775. For television the Government spent $996,572 and the Australian Labor Party $616,279. Of course, one only has to look at these figures to appreciate how difficult it would be for minor political parties to share in that process. That is not equal coverage in media terms; far from it. Yet the ALP contested 129 House of Representatives seats compared with 137- nearly equal- by the Government parties. For the Senate the ALP contested 22 seats compared with 25 by the Government parties. Those expenses do not include the cost of the preparation of advertisements, publication of newspaper and printed media advertisements, literature, howtovote tickets and the costs for dozens of other items which are involved in modern election campaign.

We are running a democracy for the rich. This legislation will make it more so. Needless to say, the present system benefits the Government parties and their sponsors, the big companies, the multinationals which obviously can afford the money that permits these parties to present their representatives for consideration to the Australian people. What happens when the Liberal Party and the National Country Party accept amounts of well over $ 100,000 from the Utah company and other mining companies? It is my view that the removal of the coal levy- I think most people in Australia who think about it would agree with this- returns much more money to Utah than it spent in getting this Government elected. But it costs the taxpayers many millions of dollars- much more than any potential subsidy for the political process. The changes in the coal levy could be justified only on the basis that there was an obligation to a group of contributors on the part of the Government. Similarly, this situation applies- as I said previously in respect of the Democratic Labor Party and the Shell group of companies- to oil companies generally, life assurance offices, banks and so on.

I should like to refer to an article in the Australian of 1 August 1978 which reported on the hearing of fraud and conspiracy charges against the two former executives of the fallen Gollin empire. Mr Keith Compton Gale was one of the persons charged. He faced 14 counts of fraud and two conspiracy charges involving more than Sim. One of the people who gave evidence on the day before this report was published was a Japanese witness, Mr Hirac Yamamoto. The Australian of that date stated:

Mr Yamamoto, a citizen of Japan and an employee of Toyomenka (a trading partner of Gollin ‘s) for 20 years-plus was stationed in Sydney for Toyomenka during the period February 1972-August 1975.

He told the court that at one time when he was asked to call at Mr Gale ‘s office, -

Mr Gale was one of the people charged. He was the managing director of Gollins-

Mr Gale told him he (Mr Gale) wished to make a donation of $25,000 to a political party.

He said Mr Gale asked him to exchange cheques with him as ‘it would be better to have a cheque from a foreigner’.

I repeat that evidence:

He said Mr Gale asked him to exchange cheques with him as ‘it would be better to have a cheque from a foreigner’.

I want to assure the Senate that that $25,000 cheque did not come to the Australian Labor Party. Of course, the Democrats can speak for themselves. This is evidence given in court. It is not difficult to say whom Mr Gale provided the $25,000 for because we know- it is common knowledge- and it has been admitted by the present Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, that Mr Gale provided help for Mr Fraser when he was shadow Minister for Labour and Industrial Relations. The Gollin company provided the services of a man to draft the labour and industrial relations policy of the present Liberal-National Country Party Government. We know that at that time the private sector of the community was providing not only manpower but also financial resources to the Liberal-Country Party coalition then in Opposition.

If we examine the problem facing us- and I hope that honourable senators will look at it in a fairly non-partisan way, but I have doubts- we will find that it is a question of either combining a limit on expenditure with free radio and television time or public funding via taxation. I think that we can reduce the amount of money that is required if- I repeat, if- there is some sort of limit on expenditure because free radio and television advertising time will be provided for political broadcasts. Anthony Lewis, who late in 1970 was a New York Times correspondent in Europe, wrote:

From the vantage point of Europe . . . American permissiveness on money and politics seems almost Roman in its decadence. The thought of allowing politicians to sell themselves in spot advertising on television would be revolting in Britain or anywhere in the established European democracies.

In the United Kingdom, individual candidates’ expenses are reduced because some advertising is free. Each parliamentary candidate is permitted one free mailing of election advertising material to every elector in his constituency. Campaign broadcasts are free. The political parties are allowed a certain number, of varying lengths, during the campaign period. It is illegal for a candidate to buy television time. The Act of Parliament which set up the Independent Television Authority prohibits the acceptance of any political advertising. I think that is the sensible way in which we ought to be looking at this proposition. We ought not to be giving our assent in globo to this piece of legislation.

Money in politics is becoming a subject of increasing concern and is generally regarded by an ever growing number of people in the Australian community as, at best, a necessary evil. What concerns us all is the problem of finding ways to elimiante or to restrict the most obnoxious campaign practices while at the same time discovering alternative methods of political financing which recognise the growing cost of campaigning for political parties and for candidates and the need to establish public faith in the basic honesty of our whole democratic political system. When bringing in amendments to such an important piece of legislation as the Commonwealth Electoral Act, it would have been worth while for the Government to bring in amendments in addition to the ones which deal with finance. Of course, we could be talking about optional preferential voting, which has been supported by the Liberal Party in New South Wales, the earlier closing of polls, the drawing for positions on ballot papers, party affiliations and so on. Of course, those matters are not mentioned in the Bill. All it seeks to do is to remove the whole limitation on finance for parties and for candidates.

I remind the Senate that if this Government was really concerned about this problem, it would have applied itself to the major amendments which the Australian Labor Party formulated in 1975, which were passed by the House of Representatives, in which all of these matters were adequately canvassed and which contained all the considerations I have suggested ought to be examined in the Parliament. Yet it was the obstinacy and the dogmatic and authoritarian approach of the Government parties, which then held a majority in this place, that prevented the implementation of the 1975 legislation.

I finish by referring to a recent Gallup Poll reported in the Bulletin on 23 July 1977. It showed that a clear majority of Australians think that the Federal Government should provide a fixed sum for candidates’ election expenses and ban all private contributions. In the survey it was put to people that the Federal Government should provide a fixed amount of money for the election campaigns of candidates for Federal Parliament and that all private contributions from other sources should be prohibited. They were then asked: ‘Do you think this is a good idea or a poor idea?’ Sixty per cent said it was a good idea, 2 7 per cent said it was a poor idea and 13 per cent were undecided. I think that gives an indication of the concern that exists within the Australian community about the unfairness of the existing system. All this legislation will do is to exacerbate the problem by removing any limitations. That is why we believe the Senate ought to express an opinion in the terms of the amendment which I have moved and which I hopealthough I know that it will not- will receive some mature consideration by the Australian Senate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Grimes:

– Yes, Mr Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I call Senator Mason.

Senator Carrick:

– I want to understand the procedures. I take it that Senator Mason is going to speak now to an amendment.

Senator Wriedt:

– No.

Senator Carrick:

– I will be enlightened on this.

Senator Wriedt:

– Well, he has the call, hasn’t he? He rose first.

Senator Carrick:

– May I ask, please, in the interests of procedure: What is happening?

Senator Georges:

– It seems to me that Senator Mason would speak and, in speaking, possibly would speak to the amendment as well as to the Bill.

Senator Wriedt:

– Well, no. Surely the proper procedure is this: Senator Mason rose and it is incumbent upon you, Mr Deputy President, to call him. Let us see what he does.

Senator Carrick:

– Just to subdue Senator Wriedt ‘s irritation, I can say that the Leader of the Australian Democrats was good enough to come and see me and to say that, in his understanding, what was proposed was that Senator Gietzelt ‘s amendment would be put and then Senator Mason would speak and his amendment would be put. Because Senator Mason rose, in an effort to subdue Senator Wriedt ‘s irritation I was trying to find out the position. I hope that clarifies the matter and reduces blood pressure.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I have in front of me the names of two speakers and two amendments. I was under the impression that both speakers would speak in this debate and then we would put the two amendments separately.

Senator Wriedt:

– But he is rising. Surely he is entitled to the call.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I call Senator Mason.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I am happy to adopt any procedural method which is legitimate and convenient to the Senate. The Australian Democrats will move a further amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time. In order to enlighten honourable senators of what I am talking about I shall give the basis of that amendment. It reads:

Leave out all words after ‘That’ insert ‘the Bill be withdrawn and re-drafted to:

provide limitations on expenditure for candidates in the next general Federal election;

to fix the limits at-

$7,500 for a candidate for the House of Representatives, und

b ) $ 1 5,000 for a candidate for the Senate; and

retain the provisions of the principal Act relating to electoral expenses, expenditure on behalf of candidates, the employment of paid canvassers or committee men, gifts by candidates and returns of candidates ‘and political parties’ expenses’.

Substantially, this amendment means that we would like to see retained Part XVI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act which, apart from some minor points in it, is to be repealed by this legislation; but we say that there should be some adjustment of the limits given to candidates. Why should I move a further amendment when the Australian Labor Party has moved one? We approve of the Labor amendment but feel that it does not approach a degree of political practicability. We think under the circumstances it is desirable that there be presented to the Government- I earnestly commend this proposition to honourable senators- another feasible solution which it would see as reasonable, right and a modus operandi for the 1980 general election. We are very concerned at the situation which has arisen. As Senator Gietzelt said, this matter was raised late in the session in the other place. In the last hour or so of the sitting of the Senate this enormously important matter, which concerns an election to be held in Australia this year, has been brought on for debate in this chamber.

A while ago Senator Tate, I believe, referred to the virtues and wisdoms of Hobart. I wish to refer to that matter again. I refer to an article in the Hobart Mercury of last Monday headed Democrats move to Block Slush Bill’. I make the point that the Press, the media and people of this country are already referring to the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 1980 as the slush fund Bill. I think it is properly described in that way. I think the Government ought to take note of the fact that that inevitably is the reaction of the community to this legislation. The Democrats move is neither here nor there. Whilst we are making this move we hope that not just Australian Democrats but all well-intentioned persons concerned in any way with democracy in this country understand what is going on. We feel that if they did understand it thoroughly they would not wish this Bill to pass in its present form.

Matters concerning the conduct of elections are of very special sensitivity to the public in every country, and rightly so. Such matters must not only be but also appear to be in the best interests of the Australian people so that they are not misled, not unfairly influenced and not conned in any way when they come to the two vital democratic responsibilities they have. The first is to stand as a candidate for election. That is the right of every decent Australian who is qualified so to do. The second right is to vote on issues which are presented fairly to them in a way that can be understood and in which every voice is heard equally in that election.

Most Australians are not so naive now as to be unaware of a very direct relationship between money and political power. They are, I think, well educated, sophisticated and perceptive enough to look at lavish campaign spending similar to that which occurred in the 1977 campaign. Their attention will be directed not so much to any message that might be conveyed in those campaign operations but at the cost of the campaign. Most perceptive Australians- many of them have told me this- when they see this spending say: ‘What did this function or advertisement cost? Where did the money come from? What strings are attached to that money?’ Then they ask: ‘What are those strings costing me as an Australian citizen?’ That might be the final question that the perceptive person might ask himself or herself.

I believe that it was our own Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, who, if he did not actually coin the phrase, launched it in Australia: ‘There is no such thing as a free lunch’. I would suggest to honourable senators that that is especially true of politics. Strings are almost always attached to the supply of money, especially in politics. Those who, in their wisdom, wrote the Commonwealth Electoral Act in its present form had in mind the opportunity for and the temptation of corruption and massive slushfunding. That aspect is probably more important than any allegation of actual corruption. Some limitation must apply to the amount of money that candidates can derive from any source which must be revealed. Some penalties must apply through a mandatory provision to candidates who do not do what the law requires them to do. 1 find the second reading speech delivered in the other place by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) to be curious in respect of this matter. In that speech, the Minister said:

Historically, the outdated provisions contained in Part XVI -

We do not agree that those provisions are outdated. We say that they merely need adjustment- derive from provisions which were enacted in the 1 9th century and designed to deal with bribery and corruption then existing in the British elections.

That provision is fine. We would probably agree with it. But I cannot understand the logic of the Minister’s statement that, because corruption once existed and certain measures were taken to stop it those measures, can now be removed and everything will be fine. I would think it much more logical to assume that the repeal of that provision would cause at least a risk that a renewed phase of corruption would result from the reinstatement of that temptation. From the practical point of view, that is what would happen. All politicians are human.

It is wrong that persons seeking to be elected to Parliament should be subject in the course of an election campaign to unlimited temptations for which they may see complete justification. A person may believe that his or her election to the Parliament or the election of his or her party to office could be the best thing that could happen. Such a person may also feel that the end justifies the means. They may believe that it is perfectly permissible to use money offered to them if it assists in that process. How much more will that be their thinking when the Government says that that is perfectly all right, that it will be legal. The Government says that there is no reason for a person to be worried about that. No report on such matters will be required because there will be no penalties. Absolutely no restriction will apply. I suggest that this attitude would create a very dangerous situation in our community.

What are the provisions? They were enacted in 1946 and the amount allowed is ridiculously low. A candidate for election to the House of Representatives may spend $500 on his campaign while a candidate for election to the Senate is limited to an expenditure of $1,000. If the obligation to report such expenses is not heeded, certain penalties apply. This law has been very much honoured in the breach, certainly in recent years. The figures available to me show that the consumer price index has increased by a factor of 7.53 since 1946. Other elements to be considered include the advent of television and the virtual necessity for candidates to express their arguments through that new medium. This development must affect any limit proposed which would be acceptable to the parties of long standing contesting an election. The Australian Democrats do not especially favour the sums in the amendment that I shall move. Originally I proposed lower amounts of $5,000 and $10,000 respectively. We genuinely are seeking a reasonable compromise which is acceptable to all honourable senators. Hence I have been persuaded that the figures of $7,500 and $15,000 are reasonable. I might add that these amounts would permit a party contesting all seats in the House of Representatives and putting forward full Senate teams in all States a maxmimum spending of close on $1.5m-$l,440,000 to be precise. I do not mind saying in this chamber that it is obvious that the Australian Democrats certainly will not have available that sort of money, due partly to its independence as a citizens’ movement and partly to the requirement in its constitution that any donations over $2,000 are subject to public disclosure. I commend that measure most earnestly to the Liberal and National Country parties if they want to be believed in as honest political movements by the people of this country. However, the real point is that it ought to be some earnest of our sincerity in that we are proposing limits not in any way suitable to ourselves.

The history of this matter is that the Australian Democrats have said that those who make laws should not break them. Experience in Tasmania and elsewhere, and feedback we have had, shows that the Australian public feels very much that way. People resent the idea that people who make laws- lawmakers- should feel they can break the law with impunity. I think all honourable senators, if they think carefully about that, would agree with the principle. If there had been no amendment to the legislation the Australian Democrats certainly would have sought a writ of mandamus to ensure that the law was policed. However, our first preference was that it should be amended. We are strongly of the opinion that that should be the case, and we regard that as the ideal solution.

My second major point is that the repeal of Part XVI is quite against the spirit of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. That Act attempts to provide equality of opportunity to all Australians when they want to stand as candidates. Our great worry is the effect the abolition of the limit will have in a single electorate where, say, a major foreign investor or a speculator might feel it worthwhile to make available to or offer to a candidate a sum large enough to affect the result of the election. As the law presently stands, that would not be possible, but if the rule book is torn up and thrown away for the vital 1980 Federal election, as indeed this Bill proposes, not only would it be possible but nobody would ever know what was happening.

I have to ask a very hard question. What is the Government up to? Is there some massive funding to come through for this year’s election? If so, in which electorates will it be spent? Will it perhaps be for the Senate? I can see that quite rightly honourable senators on the other side do not like these imputations, and I do not blame them. I am quite prepared to accept the honesty of honourable senators opposite. The point I want to get across is that these are the questions that will and must be asked, and will continue to be asked. The public will ask them, the media will ask them, and they will insist on replies. The proposed situation will be seen and rightly so, as unlimited secret power and money against the Australian people. I believe that nothing the Government can do will alter that impression. It can show its sincerity, its integrity, its goodwill, its upkeeping of its responsibility to the Australian people only by accepting this amendment. I would be most interested to hear a direct answer to that point when the time comes for the Minister to reply.

If honourable senators feel that the imputations I have made are repugnant, and I put them up because I felt I should, they have only one course of action available to them, and that is to support the amendment relating to candidate’s expenses for the 1980 Federal election. The Australian Democrats believe that in the longer term this sort of thing should be decided not by a government but by a referendum because it touches very closely the responsibilities of the Government and the rights of the people. Surely this is the son of situation that could be put and might still be put in the 1980 Federal election as a referendum to the people. The Australian Democrats feel that there should be some sort of consultation, and I hope that there will be some feedback from the public on this debate. Certainly anybody who reads the Hansard or has heard the speeches should put forward their views. Certainly I will undertake to make the Senate aware of those views, and I am sure that other honourable senators will do the same. I hope that there will be some public response to this matter. I do not wish to take up the time of the Senate unduly. I have indicated the motion which I will move.

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

– With the indulgence of the Senate, I would like to put the record straight. The suggestion is that this action by the Government has something underhand to it. The very reverse is true. As history shows, following upon a Tasmanian election a series of charges was levelled at candidates which threatened and indeed resulted in the voiding of seats. All Australians who are familiar with the electoral laws suddenly realised that the electoral laws around the land needed to be looked at very closely indeed, otherwise quite unpremeditated things might happen to innocent people. Furthermore, when this matter was looked at, it was found that candidates and all political parties over the years had been breaking the laws by not conforming with all the laws, as were organisations outside. It became fundamentally necessary to have an overhaul of the laws themselves. Nobody has the selective right to claim integrity.

Let me make this clear. This idea of claim to selective integrity is absolute nonsense. What this Government is doing is suspending a particular section for this election on the clear understanding that it will set up an inquiry which will be based on one fundamental assumption, and that has been completely ignored by those who have spoken. The inquiry will be set up on the basis that there shall be full disclosure at all levels. Let us make that perfectly clear so that all those who feel that there is something under the carpet will know what the inquiry says. The terms of the inquiry itself are such that it will take a reasonable amount of time because the Act is complicated. They include: The provision which should be included in the Commonwealth Electoral Act to require public disclosure of electoral expenditure by or on behalf of the interests of a candidate, on behalf of the interests of a political party, other electoral expenditure or information regarding the publication of electoral matter. Let us make it perfectly clear that this is no sweeping under the carpet; it is the very reverse. There is to be a public inquiry based upon a clear undertaking of disclosure.

Senator Wriedt:

– What about disclosure?

Senator CARRICK:

– Over the years, all political parties, including the Australian Labor Party- the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) has just spoken- did not make disclosure even though they were required to do so under the law. Let it not be said that this was so. So that we fully understand the situation, we want to make it perfectly clear that there are no limits at all under the present law on the expenditure of political parties, organisations, trade unions or others at all. The only limit at the moment under the law is on the candidate. So much can be spent indirectly on the candidate and not disclosed at this moment. That is a fundamental weakness. There are no limits in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, West Germany, Italy, France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland or the United States of America. So let us not be looking for something that is not there. The suggestion that it could all be done in a hurry- I think Senator Chipp suggests that- is not shared by Mr Wran, who believes that an exhaustive inquiry is necessary. This Bill will take out of the Act those measures that themselves pose great dangers to innocent people- as the Tasmanian election showed- and will put into the Act, after full public inquiry, disclosure at each level of organisation.

I do not want to be provocative, but Senator Gietzelt was totally so. He suggested that this side of the House received all the funds, that there were pressure and corruption and that this did not occur on the other side of the House. If a left wing or communist controlled trade union gives the Australian Labor Party money is that honest and open? Is that not subject to suggestions of influence? Does anyone deny that the trade union movement taken as a whole is a massive organisation which gives massive funds to the Labor Party? The fact of the matter is that the Labor Party is subject to enormous pressure groups. The Labor Party, under the signatures of its leaders, circularises both national and multinational corporations throughout Australia asking for funds for its election campaigns. Letters go out at the time of each election. Quite a flood of letters under Mr Whitlam ‘s name went to national and multinational companies asking for funds. I just put that on the record. Comments made by Senator Gietzelt suggest that the Australian Labor Party does not do those things at all. It is wrong to believe the force of financial resources lies on one side of the Parliament and poverty lies on the other.

This piece of legislation aims to set up an inquiry to bring about the recommendations for full disclosure. It is a perfectly wholesome Bill. It is anti-slush fund in the whole of its nature. We oppose the amendment and commend the legislation.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Gietzelt’s amendment) be added.

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 29

Majority…… 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I move:

Senator Chipp:

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

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 29

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 22

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– Because of the timing arrangements that have been made and the agreements made between the Whips I did not speak on this matter earlier. I wish to now make a few comments. I can assure honourable senators on the Government side that I will be reasonably brief. Like all government legislation in this matter we are getting too little of it too late. A Senate election will take place in New South Wales later this year which will probably take six weeks to count- that is, if there is a clear winner. If we have a situation like we had in 1975 we might find that it takes two months or more to get a result for the Senate in New South Wales. It is just not good enough. I do not know whether there is any other country in the world, let alone in the Western world, where an election takes that long to be counted. It takes that long to count because the Commonwealth Electoral Act is outdated and cumbersome. It needs a complete overhaul. I mentioned that we need computerised tallying of the votes and perhaps we should be investigating whether we will use voting machines.

In New South Wales, even given a reasonable ballot paper, we can assume that 10 per cent of the votes in the next Senate election will be informal. That is a disgrace. We will have a 10 per cent informal vote because we have compulsory preferential voting and we force people to put a number in every square. What we should be looking at in a new electoral Act is a system of optional preferential voting, as operated in the last New South Wales Legislative Council elections. To cast a formal vote, one had to fill in the squares only from one to nine. Even so, 4 per cent of the votes were still informal.

Senator Mulvihill:

– It was a dramatic drop, wasn’t it?

Senator SIBRAA:

– It was a dramatic drop, but it still is not good enough. In Senate elections people are forced to fill in every square. There were 70-odd candidates in New South Wales in one Senate election. It is absolutely ludicrous that if, in filling in a ballot paper, a person writes two 48s or two 49s, that ballot paper is then taken out of the count.

Senator Tate:

– It is a deliberate tactic by the conservatives.

Senator SIBRAA:

– As Senator Tate said, it is a deliberate tactic. I agree with him. I will come to that later. I think we have to ask ourselves why there are no instructions in foreign languages and no party affiliations on the ballot papers. Why do we still continue to have joke candidates that make up this huge field of 40, 50 and on to 70? Having that number is a deliberate tactic. If anybody is a genuine candidate in a Senate election I think it is reasonable enough that he should have a nominator from every Federal electorate within his State, not the situation at the moment. The deposit ought to be increased quite dramatically. At the moment Aborigines, migrants and the elderly are at a severe disadvantage. In some instances when Aborigines have been filling out ballot papers they have been deliberately misdirected on how to vote.

Senator Bonner:

– Oh?

Senator SIBRAA:

- Senator Bonner queried that, but in the Gwydir electorate at the last Federal election instances occurred that I have raised here in the Senate. I will go as far as to say that Aborigines were deliberately misdirected as to how they should vote or as to how they should make a formal vote. We have to ask ourselves why this is so. Is it because the Government feels that Aborigines, migrants and the elderly are more likely to vote Labor and therefore discriminate against them?

After the next election I will again move that a select committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report upon the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the funding of the political parties. I believe, from statements that have been made by Senator Missen and Senator Puplick, that they would support the setting up of such a committee. I know that the Australian Democrats will certainly vote for the setting up of such a committee and, therefore, I hope that after the next elections we will have the numbers in here in the Senate to set up such a committee. Immediately we would be able to set about the task of updating the Act and not just tinkering with it as appears to be happening at the moment. The people of Australia are cynical enough about the

Electoral Act and procedures. I submit that when they are presented with a ballot paper and to make their vote formal have to fill in 50, 60 or 70-odd squares, they have good reason to be cynical.

I repeat the call that was made by Senator Wriedt, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and also by Senator Chipp this afternoon and ask the Minister: Why are we not having full disclosures of where the money is coming from for this election? Why are we only bringing it in for elections in the future.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Very briefly, I want to correct an impression given by Senator Carrick during the course of the second reading debate. As I understood it, he said that the Leader of the Opposition had not submitted a return following -

Senator Carrick:

– No, I did not say that. If I did, I apologise.

Senator WRIEDT:

-If the Minister did not say that I will not bother to correct it.

Senator Carrick:

– Let me make it clear that I had no such intention.

Senator WRIEDT:

– As long as it is clear. I will make a very brief comment that it is incorrect to suggest that the Opposition- and, I believe, the Australian Democrats- do not want a proper inquiry into this whole vexed question of electoral expenses. Of course, there is a very grey area and we would want to see the whole matter clarified. I think there is common ground there amongst all of us. But the essential point is that the Fraser Government is saying that at the coming election the lid is off; those who can marshal the most money will have the advantage in the election campaign. The vast resources available to the Liberal Party will be pumped into its campaign virtually without limit. That is what it amounts to. The Labor Party and, I would assume, the Australian Democrats and other minority parties will find themselves out-gunned financially in the course of this campaign.

There is absolutely no reason at all why the Government could not have kept some limits on election expenses as, for example, are contained in the amendment moved by the Australian Democrats, which would have kept some degree of reason in election expenses. We will find that those candidates and those political partiesessentially the Government parties- which have enormous financial resources behind them, will be able to spend virtually whatever they wish. It is a desperate action by a desperate government.

It is very much afraid that it will lose its majority in the House of Representatives. It is also going to lose its majority in the Senate. This is one of the moves which it will make in a moment of desperation to try to rescue its electoral position this year. I am sure that the decision which has just been announced, that the Australian OlympicCommittee has decided in favour of Australian athletes going to the Olympic Games, is another problem for the Government and another -

Senator Gietzelt:

– Slap in the eye.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Yes, it is another slap in the eye. We will probably see, in the ensuing months, more of these moves to try to rescue the Government from the desperate position it is now in.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– I will continue to cooperate by being very brief, but Senator Carrick provoked me also in his reply at the second reading stage. I object to this scandal of a Bill, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 1 980. 1 put it in no lesser terms than that. To err on the side of conservatism, I point out that at the last election, the Liberal Party- I leave aside the National Country Party- received over Sim in undisclosed funds. 1 can prove that quite easily but I will not take up the time of the Committee. It is possible simply to calculate the amount spent on television advertising at the going rates, on newspaper advertising and on other things. If one multiplies the number of members of the Liberal Party nationally by their membership fee, one finds that at least $ lm- probably nearer $2m- came into the funds of the Liberal Party. No one on this side of the chamber and no member of the general public knows where the money comes from. In a country the size of Australia, when we are talking about $ 1 m going to a political party from undisclosed funds, that to me is corruption. I am not alleging that any honourable senator on the other side of the chamber is corrupt. What I am saying -

Senator Archer:

– You wouldn ‘t want to.

Senator CHIPP:

- Senator Archer interjects, You wouldn’t want to’. I am sure he can do arithmetic and he knows very well that the figures I am stating are correct. He would know that Sim of undisclosed funds- the source of which nobody can find- went into his party. I would be surprised if that is not automatically bound to lead or is not likely to lead to a lack of objectivity in the judgment of members of Cabinet and members of the Liberal Party in determining how they might react to one of those heavy donors. That should be quite clear even to

Senator Archer: I ask: Do the oil companies give massive funds to the Liberal Party, as Exxon, the parent company of Esso-Australia Ltd gave, I think, $80m to political parties in Italy? Is it reasonable to assume that this multinational giant would give money to political parties in Italy and not give money to political parties in Australia? I do not know. Will somebody tell me?

Let us assume that money does go into the Liberal Party from oil companies, mining companies and uranium companies. Will the judgment of the Liberal members of the Cabinet be totally subjective or objective when the time comes to make a decision that might hurt one of their big donors? Is that the reason that we have independent retailers whom Senator Carrick graciously acknowledges are being sent to the wall by multinational oil companies? Is that the reason that no action has been taken against the oil companies for driving the petrol reseller out of business; because there is a debt to pay back to the oil companies? I do not know. I would know and would be able to judge that very question more objectively if we knew the source of the funds that came into the Liberal Party. The position that has obtained to this stage will now be exacerbated. All limits are off. Millions of dollars can now be paid into the Liberal Party or the National Country Party with total impunity. That sort of situation in a democracy leads to corruption, not the corruption of the individual but the corruption of the objectivity of policies.

I repeat the question that my colleague Senator Mason asked: Why cannot limits be placed on this election? Why is it said that there will be an inquiry after this election, this do or die election for the Government?

Senator Wriedt:

– The Minister said that there will be nothing before the next election.

Senator CHIPP:

– There will be no report, no limits, until after the next election which is probably seven months away. One wonders why this situation has been brought about. I deplore this Bill. I think it is immoral; I think it is a scandal. I think it strikes at the very root of democracy. One can see that running through the original Bill like the thread of Ariadne was the whole philosophy of equity- equity to those parties, to those individual candidates who were not wealthy. It preserved some sort of protection for the less well endowed political parties or individuals. This Bill strips away all that protection for the poorer people and for the less well endowed parties. It opens up the gate for multinationals, transnationals, monopolists, to pour millions into the one political party or the two political parties which stand on the right side of politics in this country. I deplore this legislation.

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

– I rise not to take the time of the Committee but to disabuse the public and honourable senators of the arguments that have just been put forward. The existing legislation requires no disclosure at all by any political party or any organisation of the source of donor’s funds. So nothing at all is being done by this Bill to alter that situation. That is quite clear but the implication has been that it is. The existing legislation and this amending legislation make no attempt at all to put a ceiling on the real expenditure of political parties, that is, of the party organisation itself and the local conferences. The only ceiling that has ever applied has been that set by the candidate himself. By the simplest of all devices it is as easy as can be for the main flow of funds to be spent by the organisation and the local campaign committee. Of course the candidate then can keep his expenditure down. I make it perfectly clear that all this talk that for us to take limits off party funds means that something is happening is nonsense. The fact is that over the years the source of the huge sums that have flowed to the Labor Party, and no doubt to the Australian Democrats, has never been disclosed. If there is an argument for disclosure in that regard, that is an argument for another day. This Bill seeks to work out in the end, by way of expert inquiry, what ought to be the nature of disclosure and it is on that aspect that the Bill is based. I simply rose to put the record straight.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2822

ROADS GRANTS BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 May on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:

That the Bill be now read a second lime.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Roads Grants Bill legitimises the Government’s proposals to allocate funds for road development in Australia. Because the Opposition, along with many community organisations in Australia, feels very strongly about this legislation, I move:

The Government’s approach to road funding is part of its insane, inane and inadequate approach to Australia’s development. It fails to recognise that roads in a modern society are integral to the whole modern transport system. The Government’s approach to this problem of cutbacks is an affront to the whole recognition of roads in a modern industrial society. Of course, it is part of the inappropriate philosophy to which this Government gives credence in its public expenditure doctrine.

The Government’s approach is similar to the policies under which Mrs Thatcher is leading the United Kingdom to ruination. Words fail me to describe Madam Thatcher. She is leading her country to ruin by the highest increases in inflation and interest rates since the 1930s. Of course, she is applying the principle of major cuts in public expenditure in the false belief that this will somehow create a Utopia in her own country. The Fraser Government continues that philosophy. It believes that a policy of spending money on roads, housing and public sector works programs somehow or other will create inflation and will be part of a policy leading to the decline of our economy. The Government’s decision to cut back its road funds at a time when the nation’s roads have deteriorated to an abysmal and dangerous state is another example of its failure to recognise its primary responsibilities to this country. Revenue from road use has reached record levels. Consumer organisations, State transport Ministers of all political parties and local government right throughout the length and breadth of this country- in fact all public organisations concerned with road safety and transportation without exception- are pressing this Government to increase funds for the purpose of road construction.

What does the Government do? It cuts back, in real terms, the money that is needed to alleviate the problem. In the face of almost universal criticism, the Government is to make grants for main roads maintenance and construction that will just keep pace with the expected inflation rate for 1980-81. They will not be sufficient to make any impact upon the great backlog of road needs. It is not realistic even to compare the expected 1 1.3 per cent increase in the allocation with the actual increase in costs. The figure is not adequate, having regard to the cost of construction and maintenance of our roads system.

Let us examine those rising costs, which have outstripped the overall inflation figure to a great degree and which are likely to rise further. The cost of bitumen has jumped by approximately 100 per cent in the last year. We know who supplies that. It is supplied by one of the big monopoly groups that this Government represents. Again, in the last 12 months the cost of aggregate has increased by some 40 per cent. Thus, the cost of these two major components of road construction has risen many times more than the 1 1.3 per cent figure which is claimed to be an adequate increment to cover inflation.

Senator Archer:

– What about the 35-hour week?

Senator GIETZELT:

– Nor does the figure of 1 1 .3 per cent take into account the increase in the physical use of the roads and the corresponding increased need for maintenance. Of course we have the usual catchcries from the unthinking members and lickspittles of the conservative party who never think about or concern themselves with making a fundamental appraisal of the Commonwealth’s areas of responsibility. When we consider the amount of money the consumers are paying this Government we can see where it is failing in its responsibility to meet the transport needs of the motorist.

As the motorists in the capital cities of this country drive from their places of employment to their places of residence- for instance, in New South Wales using the Hume Highway, the Pacific Highway, the Princes Highway and the Great Western Highway- they appreciate what the Opposition is saying about this matter. They support the overall views expressed by the motorists ‘ organisations.

Let me refer to what is said by just one of these organisations. In a Press statement the National Roads and Motorists Association, the motorists’ organisation in New South Wales, says that in the last six years that State has lost $166m in terms of grants for urban main roads. This Government has deprived the State of New South Wales of that sum of money, in real terms, for roads. Naturally, the consumer reaction is expressed in such Press statements, and it is intense. Motorists recognise that the Government is not prepared to listen to the transport organisations of this country.

Across Australia there has been a campaign designed to appeal to this Government to increase its road allocations. Do honourable senators opposite suggest that the Australian Automobile Association, the National Roads and Motorists Association and the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria do not represent the motorists of this country; that the campaign that is being waged is based on emotion rather than real need; that what is being said is not relevant to the transport needs of this country? Those organisations draw attention to the failure of this Government to listen to their voice and to the voices of the State Transport Ministers, all of whom uniquely, despite their differing political philosophies, have been critical of the Government’s decision to relate the allocation of funds for road construction to the mere expected inflation rate.

One of the major aspects of road construction and maintenance is its employment component. The Opposition has said, in respect of housing and public works, and will say again in respect of road construction, that 64 per cent of direct and indirect expenditure on roads is devoted to the employment of labour; that if the Government were really concerned about employment, rather than indulging in rhetoric on the whole question of job opportunities for Australians, it would see the value of making funds available for this purpose. Such funds would be spent substantially in the private sector. Most of the road constructing organisations in our country, whether at the local government level, the State level or the main roads authorities in the various States, employ private sector contractors for most road construction and maintenance purposes. This is particularly important to be considered in respect of the regional unemployment in Australia. This Government should be returning a fairer share of road users’ revenue to road construction and maintenance to increase employment. On the contrary it does not make available any of the extra funds which are being sought by the road user organisations. We believe that if there were sufficient recognition of this an extra 9,000 persons could be employed immediately, directly or indirectly. The Government should take into account not only the inflation rate but also its effect on the actual cost of the construction and maintenance of roads.

We can compare expenditure on roads with the enormous capital outlays required to create so few jobs in other enterprises supported by the Government such a uranium mining, the Halls Creek project and the North West Shelf development. They require a great deal of capital but they do not have their genesis in providing jobs. This Government, by steadfastly refusing to return a fairer share of road users’ revenue to road construction and maintenance, is not making a contribution to the unemployment problem. This Bill also provides for the complete abolition of the Minor Improvements to Traffic Engineering and Road Safety program which is known as the MITERS program. The amount of $ 15m which was available in the last Budget for expenditure on traffic lights, passing lanes, kerb straightening and safety lines will not be available. That shows, of course, that this Government’s rhetoric about road safety is not borne out. Government members do not put their money where their mouths are. It is no wonder therefore that an editorial appears in today’s Sydney Sun which indicates how much out of step the Government is with public opinion. The article is headed ‘Blood on the Hume ‘ and states:

In a report released today the NRMA says up to 350 deaths and injuries a year could be saved if rural sections of the Hume Highway were divided.

This is not a figure the motorists’ organisation has plucked from the air. It is based on a survey of two rural sections of the highway where 20 kilometres of divided road has cut crashes and casualties by three quarters.

Extend this to the entire length of the notorious Hume Highway and out comes the lives- to-be-saved figure.

This Government is not concerned about lives. It is not interested in the welfare of the people it claims to represent. The editorial continues:

It’s simple arithmetic and simple logic.

But will it happen? Probably not.

The NRMA and other motoring organisations have done almost everything short of driving cars into Kings Hall to try to get the Federal Government to give back for road building a bigger share of the $2, 500m a year pumped into Federal coffers in petrol taxes.

We know that this Government is concerned only with platitudes. It is concerned only with trying to encourage the private sector by giving it handouts and subsidies in the belief that that will create the sorts of job opportunities that every person in this country wants to see. We want to see jobs for the unemployed and jobs for our children. The private sector is interested substantially in returning larger dividends to the shareholders of its companies. It is not concerned as this Government should be concerned about providing job opportunities for the people of Australia.

The sums allocated to roads have steadily fallen from those allocated during the period of the Whitlam Administration. If this Government were really concerned it would adopt a responsible attitude towards the funding of road safety improvements and engineering advances. It would accept its proper responsibilities for the national roads program. Everybody who uses those roads concedes that there has been a marked improvement as a result of the tremendous sums that were allocated during the Whitlam period for our national main roads system. This Government, of course, has the insane belief that if it encourages the private sector by subsidies, export incentives and other public funds, somehow that sector will magically create the regeneration that is needed in the Australian economy. It believes that the way in which to achieve this is to cut back public sector spending. That is the central theme which this Government has adopted since it unfortunately came to office in 1975. This theme has been shown to be a failure in the United Kingdom. Surely the policies being pursued by this Government will also be seen as a failure.

Finally, the Government’s own expert authority, the Bureau of Transport Economics, has provided concrete evidence of the benefits that would result from an improved road network. The Government’s own organisation has recommended a substantial increase in road expenditure and has said that it is not only warranted but is also needed. In a modern industrial society, how could anyone argue that we do not want to improve our whole roads system- our main roads system, our arterial roads system and even our local road system? Yet this Government, by persisting with its policy, will not listen to the demands that have been made right across this country by all the motorist organisations, by consumer organisations and by all the various State Ministers of Transport whose responsibility it is to provide the decent roads that every person in this country wants to see. Everyone in this country wants the Federal Government to accept its responsibility by providing the essential funds. I ask the Senate- I know probably without much success- to give consideration to the amendment which I have moved on behalf of the Opposition.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I wish to make a few comments about the Roads Grants Bill, which provides $628m for roads throughout Australia in the forthcoming year. I think it is important for us to remember that the Government has not only a responsibility to provide funds for roads but also other commitments, which are quite considerable, in the areas of social welfare, health and other important areas that are significant for the people of Australia. Therefore some measure of restraint has to be exerted. That does not mean that I am not somewhat disappointed with some aspects of this Bill. I regard roads as national assets that not only contribute to national development in the long term but also provide job opportunities in the short term because of the work force which is required to carry out their construction and maintenance. A project of this nature involving capital works is in my view a very important part of government action, lt ought to be considered more fully in the future because it creates jobs and consequently saves a considerable amount of unemployment benefit funding.

The South Australian Local Government Association reacted quite emotionally when the details of the road funding for South Australia were announced. I think it has an argument which is quite substantial and which will certainly warrant the Government’s attention in the year following the period that is covered by this Bill. It points out, having regard to the State’s population percentage and comparing that with its roads grants percentage, that Western Australia with 8.4 per cent of the population has attracted 12.2 per cent of the total roads grants. Queensland, which has 15.2 per cent of the population, has attracted road grants amounting to 20.3 per cent whereas South Australia, which has 9. 1 per cent of the population, has attracted only 8.2 per cent of the amount allocated for road grants. South Australia’s share of the road grants is less than that of other comparable States, and seems to be declining. I believe its share ought to be increased to approximately 10 per cent so that it is comparable with other States. The Bureau of Transport Economics quite properly drew attention to the cost increases with respect to road construction and maintenance.

The Local Government Association of South Australia has drawn attention to this matter. It has provided some interesting information dealing with increased costs over the five years from 1 976 to 1 980. It points out that bitumen used for road construction is 400 per cent dearer than it was five years ago; that hotmix for maintenance of roads has increased in price by 200 per cent over the past five years; that road construction costs generally are between 60 per cent and 100 per cent higher than they were five years ago, depending on the type of construction; that

Commonwealth road grants are only 40 per cent higher than they were five years ago; that road making cost increases have averaged out at 1 S per cent per year; and that road grants have averaged out at an increase of only 7 per cent per year during that time. It would be fair to suggest that the Government did not pay sufficient regard to the increased costs that I have just described. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) that when allocations of funds for this purpose occur next year some increase should be contemplated.

The Government has considered carefully the matter of allocations to the Minor Traffic Engineering and Road Safety Improvements Program and regards it as more of a State responsibility. The Government has reduced the funding in that area. As a result, it has been able to increase the allocation of funds for national and developmental roads, which is a new category. Honourable senators will realise that the road categories previously funded wholly by the Commonwealth were national highways and national commerce roads. The sum provided for those categories in 1979-80 was $206m for national highways and $18m for national commerce roads. Thus Bill covers national developmental roads. The allocation for that purpose is $278m, which represents an increase of the order of 18 per cent to 19 per cent. This may well assist the State Government in South Australia to accelerate the construction of the Stuart Highway. Senator Kilgariff, who is unable to speak on this matter, and I look forward to an earlier completion of’ that road. It is my view that road categories ought to be abolished. Apart from national developmental roads, I think that money should be allocated by the Federal Government to State governments for State roads and to local government for local government roads. I make that suggestion to the Minister.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I am compelled to say a few words on the Roads Grants Bill 1980 as the Stuart Highway has been mentioned. Senator Jessop has put an argument for the allocation of funds for the Stuart Highway. I remind the Senate that last year he had the opportunity to vote for an amendment about that to an Appropriation Bill. Because of the actions of this Government- the guillotine- honourable senators were not allowed to debate a similar Bill on this occasion. Both he and Senator Kilgariff, whom Senator Jessop has just mentioned, had the opportunity to vote for a special fund to construct the Stuart Highway, in conformity with a promise made by Mr Sinclair in Alice Springs. When the vote was taken both Senator Jessop and Senator Kilgariff walked out of the chamber and refused to vote. That, of course, is history. But the people in the area served by the Stuart Highway have long memories.

It is very pleasing now to hear Senator Jessop put an argument for increased funds for South Australia. We all know that the State Labor Government was always accused of not using the allocation of funds from the Commonwealth in the proper regions. Now Senator Jessop blames the Federal Government. I am pleased to hear him do it. Mr Virgo, the Labor Minister of Transport in South Australia, repeatedly blamed the Federal Government for lack of funds. When we supported him in this place honourable senators opposite ridiculed us. Now there is a Liberal government in South Australia it is very pleasing to find that the blame is being laid at the feet of the responsible people- the Federal Government. I am very pleased that Senator Jessop has pointed up where the responsibility really lies.

If time permitted I would speak for much longer. However, because of restraints I will conclude my remarks. I think I have pointed up once again that people are not always as dinkum in this place as we would like them to be. They say one thing in the electorate and they say another thing here.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Georges:

– I second the amendment.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I thank the Senate for its support of the Bill. In particular I thank Senator Jessop for his constructive suggestions. The Bill will provide road funds for the next 12 months, the first year of the next triennium. Of course we will have legislation before us next year which will pick up the changes which are being considered by Transport Ministers. Of course, the Government opposes and will not accept the amendment put forward by the Opposition.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I want to take one moment to reply to Senator McLaren. I would like to remind him that when I spoke during debate on a matter of public importance to which Senator Bishop moved that a special allocation of funds be made for the purpose of the construction of the Stuart Highway I told the chamber that it was question of policy; that I would support a motion that would include all other national highways; that a special fund should be allocated for the purpose so that the Minister could allocate those funds according to his own priorities; and that I would support the Stuart Highway as a No. 1 priority. Senator McLaren suggested that Senator Kilgariff and I did not vote for the motion. That is quite true. We refused to vote, which meant that the Opposition numbers went up by two. If three or four senators on this side of the chamber had done the same that motion would have been carried.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– Again we find Senator Jessop misleading this place. He said that the motion was on a matter of public importance. As I pointed out, the motion was not a matter of public importance; it was an amendment during the Committee stage of an Appropriation Bill to set up the fund. It is a spurious argument for Senator Jessop to useand this is the argument he uses in the electorate- that all he did was to reduce the numbers of the Government by two when in fact he did not have the courage to vote for that amendment. He had the opportunity to vote but he did not do so.

As a further excuse he said that he did not vote because a matter of policy was involved. Honourable senators who spoke on that matter, particularly Senator Bishop, pointed out it was a matter of Government policy because it had been announced as Government policy by Mr Sinclair to the Mayor of Alice Springs. Mr Sinclair said that if the Government was returned at the 1977 election a special fund would be set aside for the construction of the Stuart Highway. So no matter how Senator Jessop wriggles and twists, he cannot get out of it. It was a policy announcement by Mr Sinclair. Of course, what Senator Jessop is now saying is that Mr Sinclair cannot be trusted. I will leave it to people to make the judgment. But he made the announcement in Alice Springs. It is no good Senator Jessop coming in here and saying that he could not support Senator Bishop’s motion because he had to support Government policy. I am pointing out that in fact it was Government policy to set up a special fund and the Government reneged on it.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2827

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1980-81

Second Reading

Debate resumed from14 May, on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

- Mr President, may I suggest that Supply Bill (No.1 ) 1980-81 and Supply Bill (No. 2) 1980-81 be dealt with cognately.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I have three matters I wish to submit briefly. In the first instance, I refer to the Government ‘s Advance Australia campaign and the auxiliary operation on the supply of flags. I have here a letter from our Embassy in Berne, Switzerland, which is a reply from the senior officer to a complaint from a Mrs Dugdale of Fairfield on the lack of Australian flags. She also took the opportunity to refer to the sum of $300,000 for expenditure in this campaign, not all of which was to be spent on procuring Australian flags. But she does make the point that in respect of pageantries in the various parts of Europe and the number of Australian tourists it does not seem good enough when our embassies and consulates are light on with Australian flags. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter from our officials at the Berne Embassy so that the appropriate Minister can make inquiries.

Leave granted.

The letter read as follows-

Australian Embassy 29 Alpenstrasse Postfach 3000 Berne 32 in reply quote No. 22 1 . 8. 1 . 3. 2 July 1979

Mrs M. Dugdale, 8, Linda Str., Fairfield 2 165, New South Wales, Australia

Dear Mrs Dugdale,

The Australian Tourist Commission has forwarded to us your letter of 21 June 1979.

I was in Interlaken on 26 June and noticed all the flags flying, but as we were driving through, did not have time to see if the Australian flag was evident.

The answer to your suggestion is really one of cost. If the Australian Government were to provide several flags to each of the major tourist centres in Switzerland, the cost to the Australian taxpayer would be several thousand dollars, and this would be for only one country.

We do spend a considerable amount of time and money pursuing an energetic information programme in Switzerland. This is aimed at informing people of all walks of life in Switzerland, but particularly the decision-makers in government and private industry, of conditions in Australia, our way of life, government policy in a wide range of areas (Indo-chinese refugees, uranium, investment, etc., are some that come to mind). We also have a considerable number of films here available for public distribution and a modest library from which interested people can borrow books on Australia. I am confident that, since our flag is not prominent in Swiss towns, this does not mean that a broad and generally accurate picture of Australia is not held by Swiss citizens.

I should mention that when representatives of Australia participate, for example, in sporting contests in Switzerland, we are always pleased to lend an Australian flag to indicate Australian involvement.

If the Interlaken Tourist Office approaches us about our flag, I am afraid that all we could do is to direct them to an Australian manufacturer and suggest that they purchase some commercially.

Thank you for your interest in this matter. I trust that you enjoyed your visit to this beautiful country.

Yours sincerely.

G. SMITH

Charge d ‘affaires a.i.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– The second matter I wish to raise is that some time ago I referred in a discussion on many immigration matters to the resident status of a South Korean. Inadvertently I said he had been sponsored by the Australasian Society of Engineers. The Federal Secretary, Mr Addison, has quite correctly taken the opportunity to point out that the union’s prime responsibility is to encourage an expansion of apprenticeships in the metal trades industry. The South Korean concerned is a member of the union. I was putting forward his case for permanent resident status mindful of the political turmoil in South Korea. But I did not imply that the Australasian Society of Engineers was denying people the opportunity to gain additional trade skills here. The union naturally was not involved in the sponsorship of overseas tradesmen. I take this opportunity to put that on the record.

The final matter I wish to raise refers to travel agents. Honourable senators will know that for well over 1 8 months I have been campaigning to cull one or two unscrupulous travel agents. Unfortunately the other night when the Senate was dealing with what on the surface was a rather minute amendment to the Migration Act I felt that although it related to the illegal carriage on airlines of people into Australia it did not deal with one or two corrupt travel agents. I simply rise on this occasion to point out the peculiar position of a Chilean national named Mr Arroyo. I raised this matter of an unscrupulous travel agent- an unscrupulous lawyer- about 15 months ago. Whilst the wheels of justice are turning, Mr Arroyo still does not know what his position is.

I took the opportunity before Estimates Committee C to ask whether a determination had been made but the officers were rather vague. They said that he had not been given permanent resident status. Mr Arroyo did not act as a stool pigeon. When he indicated to me that he had been sort of conned by a travel agent, I took over and reported the travel agent to the Federal Government and to the State Travel Agents Registration Board. I think this man should not be held in a state of limbo. I ask the Minister responsible to give an early answer as to the status of Mr Arroyo, in view of the fact that his aunty was taken advantage of in relation to his coming here. I know that the Chilean community supports his case. I repeat that his coming here did not involve any back door entry via New Zealand. It was just that he was probably falsely induced by a travel agent. I ask that that matter also be taken on board.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In speaking to the Supply Bills we find ourselves once again at the end of a session with a very restricted allocation of time for honourable senators to speak. I again want to lodge my protest at the actions of the Government in bringing down the guillotine on the Appropriation Bills whereby the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money was rushed through the Parliament without proper opportunity being given to honourable senators on this side of the chamber to raise matters of importance. Of course, having been prevented from raising those matters on the Appropriation Bills, one now has to use the second reading of the Supply Bills to bring a few of those matters of concern before the Parliament.

Honourable senators will recall that on four occasions I have raised the cruelty involved in the shipment of live horses. I spoke about this matter at length last night. I had hoped that the standards laid down by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) would prevent this cruelty. Yet I picked up an issue of the Sydney Morning Herald this morning and I again saw a story of a horse having to be shot because it was travelling as cargo on the open deck of a ship. I think it is time we put a stop to this terribly cruel practice whereby individuals are allowed to ship horses to Japan just because they want to make an easy and quick dollar. Despite the conditions laid down by the Minister in the document which I read into the Hansard last night, we find that it is still happening. The Minister, in the Press release which I incorporated in Hansard, referred to the departure from Melbourne of the ship which carried the horse to which I referred and which had to be put down when the ship reached Sydney.

Senator Mulvihill:

– My Sydney office has had phone calls asking you to maintain this campaign.

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Mulvihill can rest assured that I will keep it up because I too have been inundated with calls to my office criticising the authorities for allowing this cruelty to continue just because some gourmet in Japan wants to have a meal of raw horse meat. I say that it ought to be stopped, and the sooner the better. Senator Mulvihill and I, and other concerned people, will continue to pursue this matter until it is stopped.

There is another matter of grave concern that I wanted to raise on the Appropriation Bills when the expenditure for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs was before us. I was unable to do so for the reasons I have stated. I now have to take the time of the Senate to raise it again tonight. I refer to the inadequacy of the War Service Homes Agreement Act to give assistance to exservicemen who have served this country and who, because of their occupations which take them all around Australia in various governmental jobs, are unable to buy a home of their own. When they get near retiring age they are still prevented, because of this Act, from getting a loan, at the low interest rate to which they are entitled, to buy or to build a home. I want to read a letter which I received from one of my constituents. No doubt many ex-servicemen who are listening tonight, after they hear what happened to this person, will be writing to members of parliament. I hope they write in their thousands so that members of parliament will take action to see that the Act is amended. This person wrote to me on 14 April. I will leave out his name for many reasons. I do not think he should be identified. I have already sent the letter to the Minister. Incidentally, I got word today, after the passing of the War Graves Bill, that there is a letter in the post in reply. I do not know what the contents of it are or whether the Minister will agree to allow this person to qualify for a war service home loan. This person wrote:

With retirement as Postmaster Australia Post, pending in April 1983, 1 purchased a small retirement home in April of last year for $23,500 for which, being an eligible exserviceman of the 1939-45 war, I confidently expected to obtain a Defence Service Homes Corporation loan at an interest rate of 3.75 per cent for the first $12,000, to finance the purchase.

However, as can be seen from the attached communication from the Defence Service Homes Corporation; para 4: finance from them will not be available until such time as I occupy the home, which of course I cannot do until I retire, lt is simply not possible to reside at . . . and commute-

That is, it is not possible to reside in the home that he has purchased and to commute to his place of employment which I know from personal experience is some 200 miles away from where he is living now. The letter continues:

This decision by the Defence Service Homes forced me to obtain the required finance from the Commonwealth Bank at the much higher interest rate of 9.5 per cent, with an increase to 10 per cent pending.

Of course, that interest rate could increase even further if this Government allows interest rates to escalate. The letter further states:

Similarly a request for a Home Savings Grant to assist with the purchase of the house has been deferred for an identical reason- see communication from the Department of Housing and Construction; para 3;

He attached that letter to this one. The letter continues:

Whilst the conditions under which both the Defence Service Homes Corporation and the Department of Housing and Construction operate are appreciated, as is the good faith in with which both decisions have been made. I feel that people such as myself who of a necessity must travel in search of promotion (1 have worked in post offices in Victoria, Queensland, ACT, Northern Territory and South Australia) are discriminated against in the purchase of a retirement home. Whilst I admit that travel in search of promotion was made entirely on my own initiative, I consider without being presumptuous that in addition to my war service and eligibility for a Defence Service Home loan I have done much over the years to help meet the postal needs and requirements of Australia Post customers in various areas including such isolated localities as Winston in central westernQueensland and Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory.

I consider therefore that I have merited the benefit of any assistance to which my war service and financial position entitles me in the purchase of a small and modest home in which to retire when my 36 years of public service with the post office are completed.

That is one case.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Why didn’t he incorporate it?

Senator McLAREN:

– There are many other cases. We hear Senator Baume saying ‘Why didn’t he incorporate it?’ The purpose of my raising this matter is -

Senator Peter Baume:

– To publicise yourself.

Senator McLAREN:

– To publicise it; that is the very purpose- so that people outside the Parliament know that under the Act these exservicemen are being discriminated against. That is the whole policy of this Government- push it under the carpet and incorporate it in Hansard so that the people are not aware of how our exservicemen are being discriminated against. Something has to be done about this. If Senator

Baume does not want to do it, I hope, as I said earlier, that thousands of ex-servicemen are listening who are in positions similar to this man and that they will write to every Federal member of Parliament and put their case so that the weight of numbers will force the Government to do something to assist these people. I will read another letter. It might upset Senator Baume but I will not incorporate it in Hansard. We are told day after day that this country is in dire financial straits. Even the pensioners are in trouble- so much so that they are having mass marches and mass meetings to try to influence this Government to give them some increase in the pittance that they get. Honourable senators will recall that some weeks ago every member of this Parliament received a letter from the President of the Senate asking us whether we wanted to receive an invitation to attend the opening of the High Court of Australia. I did not reply to it, but I received the invitation just the same. On 28 April 1980 I wrote to the Secretary of the High Court of Australia P.O. Box E435 Canberra stating:

Dear Sir.

Would you please advise Chief Justice Barwick, that due to his extravagant waste of taxpayers’ money in alterations, furnishings and trappings at the High Court, I am unable to accept his invitation to the opening of it on 26 May.

As a representative of many thousands of people who have to struggle along below the poverty line, I am appalled that the same Political Party of which he served as AttorneyGeneral when in Government and which is now in Government has whilst preaching austerity to all and sundry, is allowing this extravagant pomp and ceremony to take place.

Yours faithfully,

GEOFF mclaren

Senator for South Australia

I wrote that letter because I am very concerned that we have thousands of people in this country who are living and struggling below the poverty line. Yet on Monday next we will see a waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars- money that could be well spent in helping these people. That event will be well covered by television. I am sure that when the pensioners see it exposed on television they will have heartburn because they have to coast along trying to buy the necessities and to have a decent living standard. When they see the expense involved in this pomp and ceremony that will be taking place at the behest of the Chief Justice they will be very disappointed.

I intended to raise this matter when we were considering the vote of the Attorney-General’s Department in the Appropriation Bills and to make some very stringent remarks. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber were prevented from raising many matters during the consideration of the Appropriation Bills. It discredits the Government and the Senate that Appropriation Bills are passed through this place approving the expenditure of millions of dollars without the properly elected members of the Opposition being given the opportunity to scrutinise that expenditure. I lodge my protest about that. I am sure that many people would support me in pursuing these matters, particularly the first matter which I raised, namely this Government’s continuing to allow horses to be shipped to Japan for the benefit of those gourmets who want to eat raw horse meat.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE (Victoria- Minister for Social Security) (6.2)- in reply- I have noted the remarks made by Senator Mulvihill and Senator McLaren. Where they have sought information I will see that the matters they have raised are referred to the Ministers concerned and seek responses on them. I thank the Senate for the speedy passage of these Bills.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2830

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1980-81

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 14 May, on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:

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 2830

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Bill 1980. Australian National Railways Amendment Bill 1980. Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill 1980. Ship Construction Bounty Amendment Bill 1980. Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill 1980.

Excise Amendment Bill 1980.

Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1980.

Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2 ) 1980.

Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1980.

Bounty (Refined Tin) Bill 1980.

Bounty (Penicillin) Bill 1980.

Bounty (Ships) Bill 1980.

Australian Bicentennial Authority Bill 1980.

Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1980.

Wool Tax (Nos. I to 5) Amendment Bills 1980.

Distillation Amendment Bill 1980.

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980.

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1980.

Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980.

page 2831

QUESTION

QUESTION TIME

The PRESIDENT:

– With the concurrence of honourable senators I wish to incorporate in Hansard a statement in respect of Question Time. It is an interim report concerning information sought by honourable senators during the last few days. With the concurrence of honourable senators I propose to have that statement, together with the relevant statistics, incorporated in Hansard. I shall make a more detailed statement on our return to this place for the Budget session.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

On 16 May 1980 reference was made to the allocation of questions at Question Time and I was invited to make an analysis of the numbers of questions and the time taken by questions.

I have statistics relating to the numbers of questions asked during this period of sittings. In the short time available it has not been possible to compile statistics on the time occupied by questions for the whole of the period of sittings, but I have a table showing the time taken by questions during the first six sitting days of the period, and the six sitting days up to and including 21 May 1980.

At the beginning of the next period of sittings I will present to the Senate a full analysis of questions relating to the whole of this period of sittings. I will also present statistics relating to the time taken by the broadcast of questions. This matter was raised during the last period of sittings and I then undertook to present statistics on the broadcast of questions for the whole of this period of sittings. This is a major undertaking, and will be done during the forthcoming winter adjournment.

page 2831

RETIREMENT OF TRANSPORT OFFICER

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw to the attention of honourable senators the pending retirement, prior to the resumption of sittings in August, of the Senate Transport Officer, Mr Bernie Scanlon. Mr Scanlon commenced duty in the Senate on 1 7

August 1970 as an attendant and served in this capacity for approximately four years. In October 1974, he was transferred to the Senate Transport Section and performed the duties of Assistant Transport Officer until he was promoted to the position of Transport Officer on 9 February 1 978. He has served the Senate with distinction, good humour and in a manner appreciated by me, other senators and his colleagues. His smiling face at Canberra Airport has brightened many a senator’s early morning or late night irrespective of the Canberra weather or our worries of office. He will be sorely missed by all of us in the Senate. We wish him well for the future.

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

(6.6)- On behalf of Government senators, I support the remarks made by you, Mr President. Mr Scanlon is someone whom we will miss greatly, whom we valued as a friend and who has served us well. The Government has great pleasure in supporting the remarks that have been made on his retirement.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– On behalf of the Opposition, I also briefly endorse the comments that have been made and indicate our appreciation of the work that has been done by Bernie Scanlon over the years. I make one comment: I am sure that there have been some late nights when it would have been impossible even for him to have produced any smiles on the faces of many honourable senators.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– I am on record already paying tribute to Bernie Scanlon. This is the appropriate time to join in the comments made by the Government and the Opposition concerning this gentleman.

page 2832

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– Honourable senators will recall that I made a short statement a few days ago regarding the problems encountered by Dr Elizabeth Thomas of Townsville. In some areas people have attempted to misinterpret the remarks that I made on that occasion. Some people feel that I made charges against them even though I did not mention any names. The lady concerned has had an extremely rough passage as a result of the punishment meted out to her.

My criticism is directed to the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), to his Department and to the Public Service Board. This lady was suspended for a period exceeding six months and she received no pay. She received a telegram dated 28 April 1980 from the Public Service Board advising her that she had been dismissed from service on 18 April. On 29 April, she received a further telegram advising her that she had been dismissed on 24 April. The point I wish to make is that there have been some problems associated with the transcript of the appeal at which she appeared and was represented by senior legal people.

A further letter has been received to that from which I quoted the other day. I quote only three or four of the points contained in that letter to show that this doubt still exists. The letter is dated 29 May 1980, at which date we have not yet arrived. It is addressed to the solicitors who represented Dr Thomas. The first paragraph reads:

Further to my advice of the 6th May, 1980,I have been asked to specifically set out my recollection in relation to a number of particular detailed allegations of errors and/or comments made by Querist in relation to this matter, with reference to the transcript of the proceedings.

I wish to quote two or three of those comments. They read:

  1. Page 10 line 4-I think the word ‘physician’ should have been ‘specialist’.
  2. Page 38 line 7 to 12-I have no recollection Dr. (name deleted) said Dr. Thomas did this with (name deleted) permission.

    1. ) Page 86 lines 2 and 3-I think the words ‘ he was going ‘ ought to be substituted for ‘it was wrong’, but I am not certain of this.

While these points of doubt exist, the transcript should be looked at by the Department. The very harsh punishment which has been meted out to this doctor should be re-examined by the Minister and the Department. This lady’s professional standing is virtually in tatters as a result of the way in which the case was dealt with. I make a final appeal to the Government to re-examine the whole case and for the Department to examine the transcript. I hope that she will receive some justice as a result of any further examination that might be conducted.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-I should like to make a few remarks about the performance of the Australian economy and offer some constructive suggestions for its improvement. I am not referring just to the current recession in the economy, but to its performance over a long period, in fact over several decades.

Senator Teague:

– It is not in recession.

Senator WALSH:

– It is not in recession, so Senator Teague tells me it is normal to have 400,000-odd people unemployed and static growth. As numerous economists have observed, and most recently Kasper and others in Australia at the Crossroads, during the 1950s and 1960s the performance of the Australian economy was quite dismal. Given our resource endowments, our 2 per cent annual growth rate in the labour force, and the extremely high level of capital formation during that period, our growth performance was extremely poor. My constructive suggestion is that the entrepreneurial talent which abounds in the Fraser Cabinet and in the Liberal and National Country parties should be harnessed to inspire all the other lack-lustre captains of commerce and industry to improve their performance. There can be no doubt that indifferent management has been a major factor in the poor long-term performance of the Australian economy and our very low rate of growth.

Senator Watson:

– What are you judging it by?

Senator WALSH:

– I am judging it against the rest of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. These Ministers and their associates, who have a great deal of entrepreneurial talent, have failed to inspire the other entrepreneurs because they have been so modest about their own triumphs in industry and commerce. Their reticence has precluded them from exploiting their potential to inspire. In fact, we hear of their business triumphs and acumen from other people, never from themselves. They should be more philanthropic and diffuse their talent and experience. For example, if one wanted a lesson in profitable land trading, where could one find a better tutor than Philip Lynch, who made a profit of some $300,000 in land transactions at Stumpy Gully. It does, of course, help in such a profitable business if the planning authority, which is in control of land zoning, is the chairman of your campaign committee and is also involved in your land dealing operations so that he knows when the time is expeditious to buy and sell land. In spite of that- it is an advantage that would not be available to everyone- I am still sure that Mr Lynch could impart other useful information to those who wish to emulate his feat.

A critical factor in determining the viability of any business is the fate of interest on borrowed funds. Could one find anyone better equipped than the relatives of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser)-particularly Sandford and Hugh Beggs- to instruct budding entrepreneurs on the procedures necessary to obtain the funds at the lowest possible rate of interest, to wit at 4 per cent, when the going rate of interest is 10 per cent? Sir Garfield Barwick, of course, is a highly successful three-career man. His first career, of course, was law, his second career was politics, and his third career was business, although his business career was unknown to the public until he entered his 77th year. He reached the top in law, in politics, and in business, and what an inspiration his example would have been to the rising generation of entrepreneurs.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Who is this?

Senator WALSH:

-It is Sir Garfield Barwick. I was delighted to learn that the Prime Minister approves of the business career of Sir Garfield. In so doing, of course, he has buried the antedeluvian and stultifying views of Robert Gordon Menzies on the subject of judicial involvement in business. For example, when Mr Menzies, as Prime Minister, became aware of the fact that Sir Percy Spender was a director of Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Co. (Aust.) Ltd, he wrote to Sir Percy this letter, which states:

Mr E. J. Ward, M.P., this week asked me a question about your acceptance of a directorship of the Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company. I said that I knew nothing of it and would be surprised to learn that it was true.

Incidentally, the letter is dated 28 August 1958 -

Subsequently, Mr Ward handed me a copy of the notice issued by the Company on June 13, 1958, in which you are referred to as a retiring Director who, being eligible, offers himself for re-election.

I have discussed this matter with my senior colleagues and with the Leaders of the Opposition. We are all agreed that a Judge of the International Court of Justice should not accept places of profit outside his judicial work. It was, in fact, to enable close attention to the duties of the Court, financial independence, and detachment from other employments, that the salaries of the Court were fixed at so high a figure and the conditions made so favourable.

I should make it quite clear that your action, if it comes to be openly challenged in the House, will, so far as I can judge, be condemned on both sides of it.

I esteem it my duty-

Senator Button:

– Things have changed.

Senator WALSH:

– Certainly. It is a good thing that they have. The letter continues: to convey these observations to you, adding for myself that I still find it very difficult to believe the facts laid before me.

Sir Percy replied on 1 1 September 1958 notifying the Prime Minister that he had resigned his directorship. Knowing Mr Fraser ‘s emotional attachment to Robert Menzies, it must have pained him to repudiate the clearly expressed views of Sir Robert on the question of judicial involvement in business. Mr Fraser, of course, is not a man to shirk his duty, as he clearly showed in 195 1 when he judged that it was more important to the cause of world anti-communism to proceed to Oxford to pick up that third class degree instead of fighting the wicked communists in Korea. With Mr Fraser’s insight and deep knowledge of economic history in this matter, he saw that the views of Robert Menzies were a barrier to progress and had to be swept away as the mercantilists were swept away by Adam Smith in the nineteenth century- and the twentieth century bourgeois industrialists.

Unfortunately I cannot comment on the business career of a former Minister, Mr Sinclair. Likewise we have much to learn about the business career of Ransley Victor Garland, the present Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Those who search the records of the Corporate Affairs Commission of Western Australia will learn that throughout the 1970s and up until the late 1970s he was virtually the major shareholder and the controller of three proprietary companies which on the same day in February 1978 had their share registers transferred to Peat, Marwick and Co. in Darwin and then transferred back to Perth to Melsom Wilson and Partners in St Georges Terrace. In the meantime the directors of all the companies had been changed. Previously the directors had been Mr Garland and other members of his family. In this interim period new directors for all the three companies were appointed- the same directors in each case- they being Messrs Sheedy and Collie of Melbourne. All the notifications of these changes were lodged by another Melbourne firm, Rickford Administration.

When the companies were finally wound up in October 1979, they having gone into voluntary liquidation-they were all liquidated by the same liquidator- the only shareholder was Hulldale Pty Ltd. It is not known how Hulldale acquired ownership of the companies because that information is not disclosed in the Corporate Affairs Commission files. In October 1959 there was a distribution of funds of just over $500 for each of the three companies. We do not know why all this was done, but it is obvious that heavy legal costs must have been incurred in this multiple transfer of ownership and a corporate shuffle over two States and one Territory. It is not likely that it would have been done if the only assets the companies had at any stage totalled $500. The companies, incidentally, were Stirling West Pty Ltd, Greenbank Pty Ltd and Frederic Salons Pty Ltd, which were directly or indirectly controlled by Mr Garland.

Senator Button:

-Is that third one a hairdressing salon?

Senator WALSH:

-I do not think it was a hairdressing salon. I do not know what the business was. We can be sure that Mr Garland would be much too astute a businessman to have organised that multiple transfer of ownership in that two-State and one Territory shuffle unless there were some good fiscal reasons for so doing. One of the possibilities which opens up, although there is no evidence of it, is that perhaps at the time the ownership was transfered the companies’ assets might have been considerably in excess of $500, and that possibly following the well-known frugality of Liberal Party Ministers when it comes to paying taxes, Mr Garland was seeking to minimise his taxation liabilities. The activities of the entrepreneurs in and around the Fraser Government -

Senator Button:

– Are you referring to the Bowen report later?

Senator WALSH:

-We have not had a chance to do anything with that, have we? The activities of the Ministers or people in and around the Fraser Government have not been confined to the mollycoddled domestic economy with which the companies to which I have so far referred have been associated. They have also been successful exporters. Nareen wool, for instance, helps the Red Army defeat the vicious Afghan chill. In fact half the Cabinet are successful exporters. Their role as suppliers of food and fibre to the Politburo and the ayatollahs make a significant contribution to earning our precious export income.

When the Rae Committee was examining the affairs of Burrill Investments Pty Ltd, and in particular the $1.3m profit that that company had made through well informed purchasesjudiciously informed purchases and sales of Poseidon shares- in fact that is a classic case of insider trading- it did not know that the major shareholder in Burrill Investments was Noel Crichton-Browne, former President of the Western Australian Liberal Party, and a would-be senator in this place after July 1981; nor was it known that his then fiancee, now his wife, her mother and his brother were also major shareholders in the company.

I have previously in the Senate described Mr Crichton-Browne as a crook. My opinion was endorsed by a member of the West Australian State Council of the Liberal Party who telephoned me towards the end of last year and said: ‘You are right about Crichton-Browne. He is a crook, and it is a disgrace that he is on the Liberal Party Senate ticket’.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Who said that?

Senator WALSH:

– A member of the Liberal Party State Council. Would the honourable senator like me to name him? I do not think Senator Durack would like me to name him, but

I am quite willing to if Senator Baume insists. This member of the Liberal Party said: ‘Can I come to see you some time?’ I said: ‘Yes, this afternoon’. He did come to see me. He did not tell me much about Mr Crichton-Browne’s business affairs that I did not already know. He told me a few other matters. There were perhaps two significant points. One is that at the time of the Poseidon boom, Mr Crichton-Browne’s then fiancee, now his wife, Esther, worked in the office of the Burrill company, the consultant geologists, and therefore was extremely well placed to procure information not only about Poseidon but also probably about other companies prior to it becoming public knowledge information, which no doubt was put to very good use by Mr Crichton-Browne in his other share trading activities. This man also told me the name of an accountant who could probably shed some light on Mr Crichton-Browne’s association with a Christo Mull, who is the organiser of a very large but apparently unsuccessful taxation evasion racket.

Maybe if Ministers were not so reticent about their entrepreneurial activities and their business acumen, we might be able to find out the link between Stumpy Gully and Rundle, the common factor involving both Stumpy Gully and Rundle. We might also be able to find out why the Government has been so anxious, against highly reputable geological evidence, to declare the Fortescue oil field a new oil discovery at the ultimate cost to the Australian Treasury of some $2 billion or $3 billion. Of course, not all of the entrepreneurs who have close associations with the present Government have been as successful as those I have named. For instance, Mr Fraser’s former research worker, Mr Gale, presided over a company that went into liquidation and Mr Gale himself went into Long Bay gaol. The business enterprises of Mr Harry M. Miller, who has close associations with the National Country Party, likewise were less successful than Stumpy Gully and some of the other companies I have mentioned. This vast reservoir of business knowledge and acumen in and around Cabinet should be tapped in the interests of Australian capitalism. I implore the Ministers and associates concerned to adopt a more philanthropic approach to this matter and disseminate their knowledge more widely.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I am most reluctant to detain the Senate. I will do it for only two or three minutes. I am prompted to do so only by virtue of a letter I received just a few minutes ago from the Attorney-General (Senator

Durack) which I think deserves to be read into the public record. It states:

Dear Senator,

On13 May1980 you asked me a series of questions concerning the opinion of the Solicitor-General tabled in the Parliament on 29 April relating to the propriety of the Chief Justice participating in certain decisions of the Full Court of the High Court of Australia. I am not prepared to table the materials that were available to the Solicitor-General at the time of his preparation of that opinion. The material is in the nature of a brief to counsel and it is not the usual practice to table such briefs. What I can say is that the Solicitor-General had newspaper articles, the letter from the Chief Justice and other comments by officers of my Department. I have discussed your questions with the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General informs me that he has read and considered the facts and contentions you made in the Senate on 29 April last. He is of the view that the facts referred to do not establish that a fair-minded person would reasonably suspect that an unfair and prejudiced mind would be brought to bear on the resolution of the judicial questions involved. That being so, no question of disclosure arises.

Yours sincerely, PETER DURACK

About that letter I say only this: If the AttorneyGeneral thinks that he has, by this letter, closed the ledger once and for all on the Barwick affair he is sadly mistaken. There is a long list of unanswered questions still remaining- questions of fact about the precise nature and extent of the Chief Justice’s direct and indirect interests both in Mundroola Pty Ltd and in various companies which have litigated cases before him and questions of law and of convention about the obligations hitherto thought absolute on justices at least to disclose the existence of interests which might reasonably be thought capable of giving rise to bias. The cursory and terse dismissal of these questions by this Government does no one concerned any credit. Fundamental questions of propriety and public interest are involved. They are questions which simply cannot be willed away in this fashion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Senate stands adjourned until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 1 9 August 1 980 or such other time as may be fixed in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day.

page 2835

PAPERS

The following papers were presented, pursuant to statute:

Lands Acquisition Act- Land etc., acquired forTelecommunications purposes-

Huntly, Victoria.

Muswellbrook, New South Wales.

St Albans, New South Wales.

Public Service Arbitration Act- Determinations by the Arbitrator, accompanied by statements regarding possible inconsistency with the law- 1 980-

No. 127- Amalgamated Metal Workers ‘and Shipwrights Union and others.*

No. 1 28- Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners of Australia and others.

No. 129- Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners of Australia and others.*

No. 130- Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others.

Nos. 131 and 132- Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.*

Nos. 133 and 134-Professional Radio and Electronics Institute of Australasia.

No. 135- Civil Air Operations Officers’ Association of Australia.

No. 1 36- Transport Workers’ Union of Australia.

No. 137 to 140- Printing and Kindred Industries Union and another.

No. 141- Hospital Employees Federation of Australia.

No. 142- Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and another.

No. 143- Professional Officers’ Association, Australian Public Service and another.

No. 144- Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.

No. 145- Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia.

No. 146- Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners of Australia and others.

No. 147- Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service.

No. 148- Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia.

No. 149- Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia.

No. 150- Association of Professional Engineers, Australia and others.

No. 1 5 1 -Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia and others.

No. 152- Professional Radio and Electronics Insitute of Australasia.

Nos.153 to 155- Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia.

No. 1 56- Australian Government Lawyers Association.

No. 157- Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia.

No. 158- Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service and another.

Nos.159 to 162- Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service.

No. 163- Customs Officers’ Association of Australia, Fourth Division.

No. 164- Commonwealth Works Supervisors Association.

No. 165- Professional Radio and Electronics Institute of Australasia.

No. 1 66- Electrical Trades Union of Australia.

No. 167- Association of Professional Engineers, Australia.

No. 168- Transport Workers’ Union of Australia.

No. 169- Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.*

No. 1 70- Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners of Australia.

No. 171- Amalgamated Metal Workers ‘ and Shipwrights Union and others.*

No. 1 72- Commonwealth Medical Officers Association.

No. 1 73- Repatriation Department Medical Officers Association.

No. 1 74- Professional Para-Medical Officers Association (Commonwealth Public Service).

No. 175- Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service.

No. 1 76- Hospital Employees Federation of Australia.

No. 1 77- Royal Australian Nursing Federation.

No. 178- Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia.

No. 1 79- Royal Australian Nursing Federation.

No. 1 80- Hospital Employees Federation of Australia.

No. 181 -Royal Australian N ursing Federation.

No. 182- Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service.

No. 1 83- Commonwealth Medical Officers Association.

No. 1 84- Repatriation Department Medical Officers Association.

No. 185- Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service.

No. 186- Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia.

No. 1 87- Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

No. 1 88- Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners of Australia and others.*

No. 189- Line Inspectors’ Association, Commonwealth of Australia.

No. 1 90- Professional Radio and Electronics Institute of Australasia.

No. 191- Civil Air Operations Officers’ Association of Australia.

No. 192- Electrical Trades Union of Australia.

No. 193- Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia.

No. 194-Transport Workers’ Union of Australia.

No. 1 95- Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association.

No. 196- Federal Firefighters ‘ Union.

No. 198- Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners of Australia and others.

No. 199- C.S.I. R.O. Laboratory Craftsmen Association.

No. 200- Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia.

No. 201- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Technical Association.

Senate adjourned at 6.28 p.m.

page 2837

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Hollywood Repatriation General Hospital

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:

What is the estimated total capital cost including ground station cost and the amortised space segment cost, given an expected space segment life of seven years, of individual subscriber two-way telephony through a 20 watt transponder similar to that used in the Hermes satellite and planned for use in the Canadian ANIK C satellite.

Primary Schools: Teaching Aids and Materials (Question No. 2170)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 7 November 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What action has been taken in view of the recommendations of the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, Education of Isolated School Children, to ensure that small primary schools in isolated areas are provided with improved physical facilities and appropriate teaching aids and materials.
  2. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure equal educational opportunity for both Aboriginal and European children in the Northern Territory.
  3. Has extra funding been made available to subsidise the cost of upgrading and maintaining hostels in country areas; if so, how much.
  4. Has the Curriculum Development Centre yet established an information and advisory service available to State education authorities in respect of the development of curricula and the introduction of suitable educational aids and materials for correspondence schools.
  5. To what extent, and in what ways, has the Commonwealth Government encouraged the development of library facilities in country areas.
  6. Has the Government discussed with State governments the question of providing special frequencies for School of the Air broadcasts; if so, what is the result of those discussions.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The Government on November 1979 tabled its response to the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. In its response, the Government made clear that the Committee’s Report constituted a significant contribution to the definition of the problems and needs of children living in isolated areas. It was also noted that developments generally in line with the conclusions of the Committee were proceeding or were contemplated.

The Government has been concerned to ensure that the educational facilities and opportunities available for children in isolated areas are improved through a series of programs specifically designed with this purpose in mind. The Government has continued its commitment to the Scheme of Assistance to Isolated Children, which provides help to parents in the form of boarding, correspondence and second home allowances. In 1977 it introduced the Disadvantaged Country Areas Program, aimed at extending services to students living in country areas nominated as educationally disadvantaged. Specifically for the assistance of Aboriginal students, many of whom live in isolated areas and need to attend boarding schools, the Aboriginal Secondary Grants Scheme has been maintained. The Scheme provisions and allowances are designed to assist and encourage Aboriginal students to remain at school for as long as they are able to benefit.

It needs to be emphasised that Government schools in country areas also benefit from the allocation of funds from general purpose Schools Commission programs for recurrent and capital expenditure. The determination of priorities is a matter for the State authorities. Non-government country schools receive grants direct. Considerable advances have been made in country areas in recent years, although the situation of many less advantaged non-government schools continues to cause the Government concern.

For 1980 the Commonwealth Government is providing a total of $92,722,000 for building and equipment projects in government schools.

In 1 980 a total of $27,858,500 has been legislated for capital projects in non-government schools.

  1. The Northern Territory Government is responsible for ensuring equal educational opportunity for both Aboriginal and other children and the Commonwealth is providing a level of funding which should enable this objective to be met. The Schools Commission takes into account the special disadvantages experienced by Territory children living in isolated circumstances.

My Department has specific responsibilities for Aboriginal education which it discharges both in relation to the Northern Territory and the States. As part of its advisory role to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs on the funding of education and training projects, it has been involved in joint Commonwealth/Northern Territory Department of Education consideration of such issues, for example, bilingual education, outstation schools and Aboriginal independent schools.

The National Aboriginal Education Committee, which advises me and my Department on Aboriginal education matters, includes two members from the Northern Territory.

  1. The responsibility for the funding of hostels in country areas lies with State authorities.
  2. The Curriculum Development Centre is producing materials guides and indexes for selected subject areas. The guides include information on sources of materials. It is intended that correspondence schools will receive the guides and indexes.
  3. The Commonwealth Government has encouraged the development of library facilities at schools in country areas for many years. Provision was first made in the 1 968 Budget and the pertinent legislation, the States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Act 1 968, was designed to provide all secondary schools, government and non-government, with libraries which would meet the demands of modern education. With the advent of the Schools Commission in 1974, the school libraries program was extended to cover primary as well as secondary schools. Many of these schools are of course in country areas and receive assistance under the same criteria as metropolitan schools.

For 1980. the Commonwealth Government, through the Schools Commission’s Capital Grants Program has recommended that a total of $9, 1 79,500 be provided for school library building and equipment projects in government schools. The amount of $3,296,500 was recommended for non-government schools.

  1. The Commonwealth Government has not discussed this matter with State governments. However, recent negotiations between the Postal and Telecommunications Department and the Royal Flying Doctor Service, whose bases serve most of the Schools of the Air, have resulted in the assignment of nine additional frequencies for use at Derby, Carnarvon, Kalgoorlie, Port Augusta, Broken Hill and Charleville. A further frequency has been provided to the Northern Territory Department of Education for use in the School of the Air at Katherine.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Question No. 2237)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 November 1979:

Why has Australia signed, but not yet ratified, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contains many provisions which are of relevance to the responsibilities of the States. In accordance with the Government ‘s federalism policy, discussions have been taking place with the States on the question of ratification. These consultations are nearing completion and it is intended that Australia will ratify the Covenant as soon as practicable after these consultations have been finalised.

Learning Assistance Teacher Scheme (Question No. 2381)

Senator Rocher:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 1 9 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Is the Schools Commission financing a course entitled Learning Assistance Teacher Scheme to be conducted at Mount Lawley College; if so, what is the estimated cost of total funding.
  2. Are those taking the course given an option to join a student union; if not, who, or which authority, will be responsible for paying student union fees.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Funds provided through the Schools Commission’s Services and Development Program will be used in 1 980 to fund two courses, entitled Learning Assistance Teachers Scheme. These courses will be organised by Mt Lawley College of Advanced Education and are designed as refresher courses for teachers. Each course lasts 65 days. Funds for these courses have been allocated by the State Development Committee which has responsibility for determining how Program funds will be used in Western Australia. The estimated attendance and costs of the two courses are:

Course 1 for metropolitan teachers- 23 participants, teacher replacement costs $85,000, course costs $ 14,000

Course 2 for teachers from the goldfields area- 25 participants, teacher replacement costs S8 1.000, course costs S25,000

The total cost involved is $205,000.

  1. Course participants are not required or expected to pay the Students Amenities and Service Fee because the course is a non-award course which is not financed by the Mt Lawley College. The only exception is that if a participant intends to count the course units as part of the requirements for a formal qualification, then the Students Amenities and Services Fee is paid. In these circumstances the fee is paid by the participant.

Language Resources (Question No. 2389)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What information is available in relation to language resources in Australia, particularly information as to the number of persons in Australia proficient in languages other than English.
  2. Is it proposed that the next Census is to include questions relating to proficiency in languages other than English amongst Australian citizens.
  3. Will the Government give consideration to supporting and funding an appropriate survey of language resources in Australia.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There have been a number of inquiries and reports in recent years on language usage in Australia, and on language teaching and curricular provision, but the data which has been gathered is at best fragmented. The 1976 Census was the first Australian Census since 1933 to attempt to gather nation-wide data on language use. The 1 976 Census question asked that all ‘languages regularly used’ by the person whether at home, at work, at school, when shopping, etc. be listed (including English). At this stage, only limited preliminary Census results of the language question have been released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Study of this data has been proceeding at a number of educational institutions, for example in the Department of Demography at the Australian National University and in the Centre for Migrant Studies at Monash University. Further Census data is expected in the near future from the Bureau and it is hoped that this will extend our understanding of language use in Australia. If the term ‘proficiency’ implies linguistic ability I am not aware of any particular studies directed to assessing proficiency in languages other than English. There must be doubt whether it is practicable to attempt to measure proficiency in any language through a self-enumation census style approach. The 1976 Census question was concerned with language use and not proficiency.
  2. The Australian Statistician has provided the following advice in reply to this part of the question:

It is not proposed by the Government to ask the Australian public in the 1981 Census whether they are proficient in languages other than English. However, the Government has proposed that a question on ‘Use of English ‘ will be included in the 1 98 1 Census. For further information the honourable senator is referred to the paper ‘Topic Evaluation and Proposed Questions’ which acompanied the Census Regulations when tabled in Parliament (20 November 1979: House of Representatives Hansard, page 3185).’

  1. I think it would be necessary first to establish what information is already available in Australia on language resources and what research currently is being undertaken. My Department is giving consideration to this as a project.

Road and Air Transport (Question No. 2419)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. How many people were carried by: (a) Ansett; and (b) Trans Australia Airlines, on the: (i) short haul routes; and (ii) long haul routes, within Australia in each year from 1975 to 1979.
  2. What have been the dates of increases, and the percentage increases, in domestic air fares in each year from 1 975 to 1 979.
  3. How many passengers have been carried by: (a) Ansett, and (b) TAA in each quarter for each year from 1 975 to 1 979.
  4. What increases have occurred in road transport costs in each year from 1975 to 1979.
  5. How many overseas visitors passed through: (a) Melbourne’s Tullamarine Airport; and (b) Sydney’s KingsfordSmith Airport in each year from 1972 to 1979.
  6. How many Australian tourists left Australia via: (a) Tullamarine Airport; and (b) Kingsford-Smith Airport in each year from 1972 to 1979.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Routes operated by Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans Australia Airlines are not classified as ‘short haul ‘ or ‘ long haul ‘ and no definition of these terms exist.

Details of passengers carried by AAA and TAA in each year from 1 975 to 1 979 are provided in the following table:

  1. The dates of approval of increases, and the average percentage increases in domestic air fares in each year from 1 975 to 1979, areas follows:
  1. The number of passengers carried by Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans Australia Airlines in each quarter for each year from 1975 to 1979 are provided in the following table:-
  2. These figures represent the percentage change in road transport costs for each year. It should be noted that these are only representative road transport costs and should only be used as a guide.

National Institute of Languages (Question No. 2449)

Senator Button:

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

  1. Has the Government, through the Australian Education Council, received any submissions regarding the establishment of a National Institute of Languages: if so, from whom were the submissions received.
  2. Will the Government engage in consultations with the following bodies to ascertain the feasibility of such a proposal: (a) National Parent and Teacher Organisations; (b) Modern Language Teachers’ Federation of Australia, and (c) proposed National Advisory Committee on Multicultural Education.
  3. Has the Government ascertained the opinions of Australia’s ethnic communities as to the feasibility of the proposal.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government has not received, through the Australian Education Council, any submissions regarding the establishment of a National Institute of Languages. However, the Council at its meeting in Perth on 26 October 1979 had for consideration a submission from the Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations (AFMLTA) and the Applied Linguistics Association of Australia (ALAA) which recommended the establishment of a National Language Information and Research Centre. The Council decided that for the present it would not take any action on the submission.

The AFMLTA/ALAA had submitted its proposal to the State Ministers for Education, who are members of the Australian Education Council, in the period July-October 1979. The AFMLTA/ALAA had presented its submission also to my predecessor Senator Carrick, Minister for Education, in July 1978.

  1. and (3) Following receipt of the submission in July 1978, my precedessor referred it to several interested education agencies for comment: the Schools Commission Committee on Multicultural Education, the Education Research and Development Committee, and the Curriculum Development Centre. The submission was also referred to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs which has responsibility for advising on matters affecting the interests of ethnic communities. While there was some support for the proposal, it was at the same time recognised that in a period of resource restraint it is necessary to consider priorities in relation to new proposals carefully, and to consider how these proposals relate to the existing developments.

The Government is sympathetic to the need for the encouragement of multicultural attitudes and second language study in Australia. A discussion paper, produced by a highlevel group within my portfolio, ‘Education in a Multicultural Australia ‘has been widely distributed to seek comment on various aspects of Australia as a multicultural society, including the place of languages in such a society. The distribution included Federal and State parent and teacher organisations, education committees of ethnic associations and other interested organisations and individuals. Following reactions to the discussion paper my Department will develop policy guidelines on multicultural education. The place of languages will necessarily be further considered in this context.

Qantas Airways Ltd: Overseas Loans (Question No. 245S)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What were the total exchange losses incurred by Qantas Airways Limited on overseas loans negotiated for the purpose of purchasing aircraft since 1 January 1976.
  2. When was each loan negotiated, in what currency was each loan negotiated, when is each loan repayable and what exchange losses or gains are applicable.
  3. What overseas loans have been negotiated since 1 January 1 976 by other Australian statutory authorities for the purpose of purchasing equipment or other purposes.
  4. for each such loan: (a) when was the loan negotiated; (b) for what amount; (c) in what currency; (d) when will each loan be repayable; and (e) what exchange losses or gains are applicable.
  5. What provisions are made for Australian statutory authorities to cover themselves against foreign exchange losses.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) See attached table which provides latest information available.
  2. and (4) The information sought in the honourable senator’s question is not readily available to me.
  3. As indicated in the Treasurer’s response to Question No. 2259 official forward cover facilities available through the banking system are designed basically to enable the private sector to cover exchange risks on trade transactions and some closely related invisible transactions. Consequently official forward exchange facilities are not available to Government departments or organisations which are essentially part of a Government department. Official forward cover facilities are usually available, however, to public corporations if they are involved in commercial operations and if they are entirely dependent upon revenue raised in the pursuit of these commercial operations. Official forward cover is not available for capital transactions. Statutory authorities may seek to cover their foreign currency exposure arising from capital transaction, or any other transaction ineligible for official forward cover, in the interbank or intercompany currency hedging markets.

Tourist Industry Programs, Canberra (Question No. 2494)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 4 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has there been a reduction in the number of places offered in the 1980 first year course of the hotel and catering certificate at the Canberra College of Technical and Further Education, compared to previous years; if so: (a) what is the extent of this reduction, and (b) what is the reason for this reduction.
  2. Does the Government have any special programmes designed to assist the achievement of its aim of promoting the tourist industry, through training people to work in industry; if so: (a) what is the exact nature of these programmes; (b) how much is the Government spending on them; and (c) what proportion, if any, of these funds is being directed to the hotel and catering management certificate at the Canberra College of Technical and Further Education.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There has been no reduction in the number of places available in 1980 in Stage I of the Hotel and Catering certificate course at the Canberra College of Technical and Further Education compared with the previous year.

The actual enrolments in 1 979 and in 1 980 are: 1 979- new students-65 total in course- 97 1980- -new students-60 (as at 3 March 1980) total in course- 96

  1. (a) and (b) Although the Government does not have any educational programs specifically designed to train people to work in the tourist industry, a number of related major TAFE projects in the States have received or are receiving substantial Commonwealth funding, as follows:

Completed Projects

Ryde School of Hotel and Catering Administration.

This project was completed in 1979 with a Commonwealth contribution of SIO. 8m towards a total project cost of$11.1m

Regency Park Community College- School of Food.

This school was opened in 1977. The Commonwealth contribution was S3. 5m to a total cost of $ 10. 1 m. The cost of the food school was S3. 7m.

Projects Under Construction Box Hill Technical College.

Stage II of this project provides for 150 student places for catering of a total number of student places of 2,600 within the whole college. The cost of this stage is $7. 4m. Completion is expected in January 1981.

Carine Technical College

Stage I of this project provides facilities for catering courses for a projected enrolment of 300 students. The cost of this project is $2.0m and it is expected to be completed in July 1980.

Bentley Technical College.

The Commonwealth is providing $3. 8m for additions to existing facilities at this college. These additions include extension to the existing facilities for the catering school and the provision of an additional 163 student places. The project is expected to be completed in mid 1 980.

  1. The Hotel and Catering Management certificate course at the Canberra College of Technical and Further Education is funded directly through the Department of Education as part of the normal funding of Further Education in the Australian Capital Territory. It is not possible to totally isolate the costs directly attributable to this particular course.

Reserve Forces (Question No. 2499)

Senator Colston:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on S March 1980:

  1. What was the strength of (a) the Citizen Military Forces; (b) the Naval Reserve; (c) the Air Force Reserve; and (d) total reserve forces in each year since 1 945.
  2. What has been the number of personnel: (a) enlisted; (b) discharged; and (c) transferred, to the Reserve of Officers in each of the reserve forces, and to the total reserve force, in each year from 1969 to 1979.
  3. How many of those discharged in each year from 1 969 to 1979 in: (a) each separate force, and (b) the total reserve force, had served: (i) less than one year; (ii) one year to less than two years; and (iii) more than two years.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The strengths of the Reserve Forces for the period 1948 to 1979 are shown in the following table.

Notes: (a) Reserves with training obligations including: Naval Emergency Reserve Forces, Royal Australian Naval Reserve (Part), Regular Army Emergency Reserve, Active Citizen Military Forces, Air Force Emergency Reserve and Active Citizen Air Force.

Excludes those members serving full-time in the Permanent Defence Force but includes all other listed Reserve members including some who have not fulfilled their minimum training obligations.

  1. The Naval Reserves were not re-introduced until 1950.

Figures include National Service obligatees

The inactive element has not been included in the figures.

No officers have been recruited in the RANER since late 1 973 and this component is now zero.

  1. The CMF was formed in 1948. Includes National Service obligatees.

The inactive element has not been included in the figures.

Statistics up to 1959 are taken from a different series from those shown from 1960 onwards.

  1. Strength figures from 1945 to 1953 not available.

Figures for 1 954 to 1 959 available for active element only (Column B).

The Air Force Reserve was re-organized in 1 960, creating a new active element (Column B).

Column A includes the Air Force Emergency Reserve which reduced to zero strength in 1978. It also includes figures in Column B.

University Squadron Cadets were disbanded in 1 974 and are not included.

  1. Totals up to 1959 not shown because of unavailability of consistent data.

Totals from 1960 do not include Air Force Column B which is subsumed in Column A.

  1. and (3) The Services do not keep statistics in the format sought. Retrieval of the data could only be effected by a manual search of every Reservist’s file from 1969 to 1979. Manpower is not available to check the many thousands of files involved.

Reserve Forces: Requests for Discharge (Question No. 2502)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) What studies have been made in recent years to determine why members of Australia’s reserve forces seek discharge.
  2. What conclusions have been drawn from those studies.
  3. 3 ) What steps are being taken to slow the rate of request for discharge.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. I ) The Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Citizen Military Forces (the Millar Committee) included an examination of the question of retention of members in some detail. In addition, a number of studies have been conducted by Army Reserve formations, on a regional basis, to determine the best ways to increase retention. No formal studies have been undertaken by the Navy and Air Force as their strengths are considerably lower than the Army’s. The number seeking discharge before the expiration of engagement is small and has not been a source of concern.

    1. The conclusions drawn by the Millar Committee are contained in Chapters 1 and 10 and Annexes C and D of the Committee’s Report. Factors identified as having an influence on members’ decisions to seek discharge include a change in job or occupation and /or a change in place of living, the unwillingness of employers to release members and negative attitudes of wives or girlfriends. Later regional studies conducted by Army Reserve formations also indicate that the main reasons members leave the Army Reserve are job change, increased job demands, insufficient time available and family commitments.
    2. 3 ) Following one of the Millar Committee ‘s recom mendations, the Committee of Employer Support of Reserve Forces was established in 1977 to promote service in the Reserves of the three Arms of the Defence Force. Employers were asked specifically to release employees serving in the Reserves for camps and other training, thus contributing to the stability of the Reserve Forces. The response of employers to date has been satisfying. There is little that can be done to slow down the rate of discharge in cases where members place family interests ahead of those of the Reserve Forces.

Bunker Fuel (Question No. 2518)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Does the Department of Defence hold supplies of bunker fuel for naval and army ships.
  2. Where are the bunkers located and what is the total storage capacity at each port in Australia.
  3. Does the Department draw its bunkers from one oil company or groups of oil companies.
  4. Are the oil companies required or requested to hold stocks of bunkers and other refined oil products for the Defence Department.
  5. 5 ) What arrangements are there to ensure availability of oil supplies to the Department of Defence in the event of an emergency.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Naval oil fuel installations are located at Sydney, Hobart, Fremantle, Darwin and Cairns. Actual storage capacities of these installations are classified.
  3. Fuel is supplied under contracts arranged through the Department of Administrative Services with various oil companies.
  4. Contracts for supply of aviation fuels to Commonwealth Departments contain a clause requiring the contractor to maintain exclusively for the RAAF emergency reserve stocks at the points and in quantities specified in the contract.
  5. Through Joint Service Local Planning Committees in each State, the Defence Force maintains liaison with each of the State Government authorities controlling fuel allocation arrangements within that State. As well there is continuous liaison with the representatives of the oil companies holding the supply contract.

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (Question No. 2577)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 18 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) What proportion of a full workload must be undertaken if a student is forced through illness or injury to reduce his or her workload so as to avoid failure and is to claim successfully the full Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) benefits to which the student would otherwise be entitled.
  2. What degree of illness or injury must the student suffer before he or she is entitled to reduce his or her workload to this level while still receiving TEAS benefits.
  3. To what amount of TEAS benefits is the student entitled if the ill or injured student’s workload falls below this level.
  4. What TEAS benefits can the student claim, both in 1 980 and in later years if, in 1 979, a student due to illness or injury, completed less than 73 per cent of a full workload and is forbidden in 1980, to progress to a higher level until the remainder of the 1 979 workload is completed.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) A student may receive TEAS if he or she is enrolled for three-quarters of the normal full-time workload. This proportion may be reduced to two-thirds in certain circumstances, for example, where a student has, because of the lack of availability of the required subjects, no choice but to undertake a lighter load.

There is no additional concession enabling a student, because of illness or injury, to undertake an even lighter load and still be entitled to benefits for which a full-time student would be eligible.

  1. Where a student failed to complete satisfactorily one or more subjects in 1979 for reasons beyond his or her control, such as illness or injury, it is possible to disregard these failures when determining the student’s eligibility for assistance in 1980 (and beyond). The student can qualify for a repeat year of assistance in 1 980, provided the remaining conditions of the Scheme are met. One of these conditions is minimum workload in 1980. It is not possible to comment more specifically on the student’s eligibility without details of his or her academic background.

Unemployment Benefit: Statement of Income (Question No. 2693)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 1 7 April 1 980.

  1. Is it necessary for people in remote areas to lodge Statements of Income personally each fortnight; if not, how may the Statements be lodged and what are the guidelines which determine whether or not a Statement has to be personally lodged.
  2. Are all Commonwealth Employment Service officers in non-metropolitan areas familiar with these guidelines.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) No. CES operational guidelines provide for the postal lodgment of Unemployment Benefit Income Statements in remote areas. The general guidelines state that where no recognised public transport is available, irrespective of whether or not the beneficiary has private transport, postal lodgment is approved. In such instances the CES endeavours to arrange for beneficiaries to be interviewed on a 6 weekly basis.

Where public transport is available, but where personal lodgment of Income Statements involves beneficiaries being required to wait in excess of 4 hours for return transport, postal lodgment is permitted, with attendance being required on a 6 weekly basis. Where return transport arrangements necessitate young people under 18 years of age being obliged to return home outside daylight hours, personal attendance is waived and arrangements are made for them to be interviewed by the CES on a 6 weekly basis.

  1. Yes.

Airline Licences (Question No. 2694)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 21 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) What companies hold commuter and/or third level Airline Licences and who are the directors of these companies.
  2. What aircraft types are in use by these companies and what is the maximum passenger capacity and the maximum take-off weight for each type.
  3. Which types are licensed for instrument flight rules (IFR) and which are licensed to operate with only one licensed commercial pilot.
  4. Are such pilots required to hold a First Class instrument rating.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Details of Australian commuter operators and the routes flown by each, are shown in the Department of Transport’s Annual Report 1978-79. Information concerning the directors of those companies conducting commuter services is not readily available.
  2. and (3) A variety of aircraft types are used for commuter services. Below is a table showing the types more commonly in use.

All multi-engined types which meet the appropriate instrument, equipment and performance requirements, and which are authorised by the flight manual are approved for night under instrument flight rules (IFR).

As indicated in the table above, generally all propeller driven mutli-engined types having a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) not exceeding 5,700 kg can be operated by one pilot. Two pilots are required for all commuter services operating under IFR without a serviceable auto-pilot fitted.

  1. Pilots-in-command of commuter aircraft operating under IFR are required to hold either a 1st Class instrument rating or a Class One instrument rating. These ratings are of an equivalent standard, but the Class One instrument rating applies to aircraft having a MTOW not exceeding 5,700 kg. Pilots conducting single-pilot operations under IFR are therefore required to hold the Class One instrument rating.

Kangaroos: Hong Kong Zoo (Question No. 2717)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 April 1980:

  1. What action has been taken to investigate the conditions of kangaroos at the Hong Kong Zoo as reported at page 8 of the Kangaroo Protection Co-operation Ltd Newsletter dated March 1980?
  2. When did the appropriate diplomatic officer in Hong Kong inspect the zoo in accordance with previous assurances given to Senator Mulvihill that conditions of Australian wildlife in foreign zoos would be checked?
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am informed the Hong Kong Zoo currently does not house any kangaroos.
  2. I have previously explained to the honourable Senator in my reply to his question 1946 (Hansard, 8 November 1979, page 2147) that although the Department of Foreign Affairs was not the appropriate authority to advise on the suitability or otherwise of Australian native fauna in foreign zoos, Australian Embassies would complete questionnaires about the well-being of Australian animals in foreign zoos when an Australian Customs Officer is not available.

I am advised that the Australian Commission in Hong Kong has received no recent complaints about the Hong Kong zoo: but following a complaint in September 1979 about Ocean Park Ltd, Customs Officers carried out an inspection of that establishment in December/January. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs will comment on this inspection in his reply to the honourable Senator’s Question 2716.

National Acoustics Laboratory: Visits to Country Centres (Question No. 2734)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 23 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) To what country centres, in each State, do teams from the National Acoustics Laboratory make regular visits to test the hearing of pensioners or other eligible persons.
  2. How often did the teams visit each centre in 1 979 and 1980.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (l)and(2)

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme: Family Allowances (Question No. 2736)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 28 April1980:

  1. 1 ) On what date were family allowances incorporated first into cheques paid for Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) students.
  2. If TEAS allowance is discontinued for the student is the student notified that he or she will remain eligible for family allowance while a full-time student and that an immediate application should be made for payment of family allowance; if not, why not.
  3. Is there any reason why families of students on TEAS cannot be given the option of having, or not having, their family allowance included in the TEAS cheque, so that if they are no longer eligible for TEAS but still eligible for family allowance, the latter can be continued automatically.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. ) The transfer of average family allowance payments direct to TEAS beneficiaries began with the first TEAS cheques for1979.
  2. All students who are ruled ineligible for TEAS are advised that they may be eligible to have payments of family allowance to their parents resumed by the Department of Social Security.
  3. The provision of options for the payment ofthe family allowance component by either the Department of Education or of Social Security would complicate payment procedures and could lead to delays particularly if there were disagreement among families regarding the preferred method of payment.

Post-Graduate Awards (Question No. 2739)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 23 April 1980:

Is the Minister now in a position to say whether there has been a specific meeting between the Tertiary Education Commission and the Department of Education in relation to post-graduate awards (see Senate Hansard, page 90, dated 20 February 1980), and is he able to provide any details about it.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Government decided in the context of its responses to the recommendations of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training (Williams Committee) that the Department of Education and the Tertiary Education Commission would review the number and value of Postgraduate Awards. There has been a series of meetings between officers of the Department and the Commission in connection with the review.

In the honourable senator’s question of 20 February, he inquired whether the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations was invited to make representations on this matter. The Council was invited to make a submission for the review and subsequently did so. The results of the review will be considered by the Government in the Budget context.

Alice Springs to Darwin Railway (Question No. 2756)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 30 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Following the completion of the Tarcoola to Alice Springs rail link, when will the Government commence construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway.
  2. Can continued employment on this project be provided for the construction crew now waiting in Alice Springs, and when will they be informed of the situation.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Consideration by the Government of the proposal to construct a standard gauge railway from Alice Springs to Darwin is awaiting completion of the report of the joint Commonwealth/Northern Territory study which has been undertaken into the feasibility of building this link. The report is expected shortly.
  2. Construction of the Tarcoola to Alice Springs railway is now in its final stages. It is clearly up to the private contractors employed on that project to seek contracts on other projects.

Air Services: Melbourne to King Island (Question No. 2760)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 April 1980:

  1. Has Ansett Airlines of Australia applied to cease operating on the Melbourne to King Island service.
  2. Have the people of King Island or their representatives been notified of this.
  3. 3 ) Which airline will replace Ansett on this route.
  4. Will the people of King Island or their representatives be consulted before a new licence is issued.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) No, however, I understand Ansett representatives are arranging to visit the Island.
  2. At this stage it is inappropriate to speculate on who may replace Ansett in the event it was to cease operations between Melbourne and King Island.
  3. No decisions will be taken without proper consideration of the views of the King Island residents.

Joint Groundwater Study with USSR (Question No. 2767)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1980:

Has the Government made arrangements with the USSR to participate in a joint groundwater study of the areas of the Murray Basin, together with the State Governments of New South Wales and Victoria? If so, will the joint study continue or will it be abandoned as a result of the current campaign of terminating all associations with Russia, except where this country is exporting war materials and similar goods to the USSR.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

In June 1 979, Australian and Soviet scientists drew up a program of cooperation in a groundwater study of the Murray-Darling and South-East Coast catchment areas. This program was to have been undertaken under the auspices of the Australia/ USSR Scientific and Technical Cooperation Agreement. As the honourable Senator will be aware, all activities under this Agreement were indefinitely suspended by the Australian Government in January 1 980.

In respect of the last part of the question, Australia does not export defence materiel to the USSR. The honourable Senator will be aware that in February 1980 the Government, after a review of its relations with the Soviet Union which took into account the attitudes of other countries including the United States and the United Kingdom, decided that the export of raw materials to the USSR should continue normally.

Bureau for Labour Market Research (Question No. 2788)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 13 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Bureau for Labour Market Research been established; if so: (a) on what date was it established; (b) has it commenced operations; and (c) where is it located.
  2. ) How many staff are employed or are to be employed by the Bureau.
  3. What are the names, qualifications and salaries of the Director and the Deputy-Directors of the Bureau and on what dates were they employed.
  4. What projects has the Bureau commenced work upon and when will these projects be completed.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes: (a) The decision to establish the Bureau for Labour Market Research was made on 4 December 1979; (b) No; (c) It is to be located in Canberra.
  2. Up to 50 are to be employed by the Bureau.
  3. The appointment of a Director will be made shortly. The salary of the Director will be $36,738 per annum.
  4. None. The work of the Bureau will commence with the appointment of the Director.

Australian Tourist Commission: Publicity Photographs (Question No. 2805)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 14 May 1980:

  1. How many areas at Townsville and North of Townsville have been photographed for publicity purposes by the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) during 1979 and what were the areas.
  2. ) What was the cost of such tours.
  3. Has photographic material obtained by the ATC during this period been used for overseas promotion; if so, in what countries was the promotional material used.
  4. Does the ATC or the Government have any plans for carrying out tourist promotion at Townsville and at areas north of Townsville, during 1 980.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Areas in North Queensland photographed by the ATC during 1 979 were from Townsville to Port Douglas inclusive, Magnetic, Hinchinbrook and Dunk Islands, Cairns and environs and the Atherton Tablelands.
  2. The cost of ATC photographed missions to Queensland (Brisbane to Port Douglas) was approximately $3,500 in 1979.
  3. Selected photographic material obtained by the ATC on these tours during 1 979 has been widely and repeatedly used in all of Australia’s major markets, namely, New Zealand, Britain, Europe, Japan, North America and throughout South East Asia.
  4. During May a group of South-East Asian journalists will visit both Cairns and Townsville. In early June, 20 Major North American adventure travel operators will visit Cairns and environs and will meet 16 Queensland adventure travel operators in a workshop environment. Townsville and Cairns have both been selected as centres for ATC’s seminars to the travel industry on its domestic tourism promotion at the end of May.

Australian Tourist Commission: Overseas Publicity (Question No. 2806)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 14 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) Why do many influential travel agencies use a system of pressuring the Australian public into believing that overseas travel is the “in thing” without spending similar sums of money advertising travel holidays in Australia.
  2. Are travel agencies organised through the banking system showing a profit up to 25 per cent on overseas travel bookings while the profit on internal holiday travel amounts to only 10 per cent. to 1 1 percent.
  3. What amount of money was available to the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) to publicise Australia overseas during 1979-80, and is this money being ineffectively spent.
  4. What will be the amount of money spent by the organisation known as the Australian Federation of Travel Agents on tourist promotion overseas for 1 979-80.
  5. Did the ATC recently book an Australian Tourist Commission photographic crew into a Cardwell motel to take feature photographs of tourist attractions in the area.
  6. Was the booking cancelled and did the photographic crew proceed to Dunk Island, Lizard Island and Cairns without taking any photographs at all of the Cardwell area.
  7. Is it a fact that Trans- Australia Airlines has spent $3,000,000 developing Dunk Island and an evaluation of tourist industry development in Cardwell has been assessed by a private valuer at $3,600,000.
  8. Why was Dunk Island given additional advertising and Cardwell ignored.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. ) The marketing practices of travel agencies are a matter for commercial decision by the agencies and are not subject to Government direction. However I would doubt that any responsible travel agent would exert undue pressure on a client to travel to a particular destination.
  2. Detailed information on the profits of travel agencies is confidential and I am not able to comment on the accuracy of the figures quoted. I understand that international airlines pay a higher rate of commission on sales of airline tickets than do the domestic carriers.
  3. (a) Approximately $5.5 million of ATC’s total allocation of $8.2 million in 1979-80 is being spent directly on overseas promotion (exclusive of salaries of overseas staff, rents of offices etc.)

    1. No. Australia’s travel attractions and products are being widely promoted through advertising and publicity aimed carefully at potential travellers to Australia. The Commission has won many awards for its promotional activities. I might also mention that, according to preliminary figures short term overseas visitor arrivals for 1979 were some 24 per cent higher than for 1978.
  4. The Australian Federation of Travel Agents is an industry association which represents the interests of Australia’s travel agents. It is not a function of the Federation to promote Australia overseas. However individual members of the Federation do promote Australia overseas as part of their normal commercial activities.
  5. Yes.
  6. Due to weather conditions unsuitable for filming, the photographic crew by-passed Cardwell and proceeded with its scheduled program. The crew did not proceed to Dunk Island, Lizard Island and Cairns. However, photgraphs were taken in the Cardwell area on Hinchinbrook Island.
  7. Trans Australia Airlines have advised that they have spent $4,500,000 on acquiring and totally redeveloping Dunk Island through one of their subsidiary companies, Great Barrier Reef Hotel Pty Ltd. I am not aware of any private valuer’s assessment of tourist industry development in Cardwell.
  8. 8 ) See answer to ( 6 ).

Minister for Social Security: Appointments to Statutory Authorities (Question No. 2871)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 15 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) 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 Social Security.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) John Oman Ballard, appointed under Section 64 ( 1 ) and (2) of the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act 1971-1974 as Compensation Tribunal for the period 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1981 with a salary of $29,508, currently $42,1 11.
  2. Bernard Joseph Dwyer, appointed under Section 9(1) of the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act 1 97 1 - 1 974 as Commissioner for Employees ‘ Compensation for seven years from 2 October 1975 with a salary of $22,000, currently $34,05 1.

Conversion to Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 22 April 1980 (Hansard, page 1626) Senator Young asked me a question without notice concerning the establishment of uniform regulations for liquid petroleum gas conversions of motor vehicles in Australia.

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

Uniform vehicle regulation throughout Australia is achieved through the endorsement of Draft Regulations by the Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC) which consists of Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers responsible for Transport. The Draft Regulations form a national code of vehicle regulations for adoption into legislation in the States and Territories.

Experts from the Commonwealth, States and Territories have already had discussions and have made proposals for Draft Regulations covering the conversion of fuel systems on motor vehicles to use liquefied petroleum gas. It is planned to have these proposals put to ATAC for endorsement at its next meeting to be held in July.

Secondary Student Allowances

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 23 April 1980 (Hansard, page 1702) Senator Colston asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Education, the following question without notice:

I direct the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Education to a report in the Courier-Mail of ‘22 April 1980 in which it is mentioned that fewer applications for secondary allowances have been received in Queensland this year than were received last year. As applications received after 2 May will not allow the applicant to receive assistance for the first term, I ask whether the Department of Education could undertake an extensive advertising campaign to advise those eligible for benefits to submit applications.

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

The Courier-Mail article of 22 April to which Senator Colston has referred was in fact pan of an extensive publicity campaign aimed at potential applicants for Secondary Allowances Scheme benefits undertaken by the Queensland Office of my Department. Intensive publicity efforts were made to ensure that as many as possible of those eligible for benefits submitted applications before the first term closing date of 2 May. Publicity material was provided to the metropolitan and provincial press, to radio and television stations and to other appropriate information outlets such as government and non-government welfare agencies. All Queensland members of Parliament, both State and Federal, were also sent information material on the Scheme, and reminders concerning the closing date were sent to schools and guidance services.

These measures have served to supplement the already extensive publicity given to the Scheme. The major components of this earlier publicity were two annual large-scale exercises aimed directly at parents. Towards the end of 1 979 information cards on the Scheme were distributed through the Department of Social Security to all parents with children who had turned or were about to turn 16 years of age. In addition, special brochures were sent to schools in sufficient numbers for a copy to be provided to each student about to enter year 1 1 or year 12.

I might add that the Scheme’s publicity also takes into account the special needs of migrants. Information translated into eight different languages is included in a special brochure which is distributed each year to migrant organisations, welfare agencies and schools.

Marine and Antarctic Sciences: Study Centre

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 29 April 1 980 (Hansard, page 1882) Senator Tate asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education a question without notice concerning a proposal by the University of Tasmania for the establishment of a marine and Antarctic studies centre.

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

The proposal from the University of Tasmania to establish a special centre for the study of marine and Antarctic sciences, together with other proposals for specialist new courses in Tasmania, which followed the Government’s consideration of the Callaghan Report on The Structure of Industry and the Employment Situation in Tasmania, was first examined by the Tertiary Education Commission in 1978. Following receipt of advice from the Commission, the Government decided to seek the views of the Antarctic Research Policy Advisory Committee (ARPAC) and of the Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Advisory Committee (AMSTAC) on the proposal. The Tertiary Education Commission is currently re-examining the proposal in the light of the views of the two advisory bodies, following which it will be further considered by the Government in the context of the Government’s Tasmanian policy and a decision will then be taken.

Discount Air Fares

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 29 April 1980 (Hansard, page 1880) Senator Watson asked me a question without notice concerning domestic air fares.

The Minister for Transport has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question.

Formal applications have been received from TAA and Ansett seeking an increase in domestic air tariffs. Their claims are based in part on recent increases in fuel and labour cost increases. The rapidly rising price of fuel is having a particularly severe impact on the airline industry.

The initiatives taking place in the area of discount fares reflect the more highly competitive attitude on the part of the airlines. In general discounts have not been extended but conditions attached to concessional fares have been relaxed and simplified to bring benefits from easier administration and public understanding.

Promotional fares are intended to be self-financing in that they generate new business, and do not affect availability of seats to normal economy and first class passengers since their allocation is limited on the more highly loaded flights and used on a fill-up basis for other flights. In this way the additional revenue from these fares helps contain the overall level of fare increases thus benefiting regular travellers.

New South Wales Statutory Authorities (Question No. 2203)

Senator Rae:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 November 1979:

  1. Are there 258 statutory authorities (Quangos) within the administration of the New South Wales Government.
  2. Which New South Wales statutory authorities: (a) have; and (b) have not, received Commonwealth funds: (i) directly, or (ii) indirectly, during each financial year since 1976-77.
  3. Which New South Wales statutory authorities have received, are receiving, or will receive Commonwealth funds: (a) directly; or (b) indirectly, for the financial year 1979-80.
  4. For what specific purposes have the funds mentioned in pan (3) above been allocated, or for what specific purposes are they being, or to be, allocated.
Senator Carrick:
LP

-The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) To obtain precise information on statutory authorities within the administration of the New South Wales Government, the honourable senator would need to approach that Government. There are a number of different types of public authorities within the New South Wales Government administration (and other administrations ) ranging from departments to various semi-autonomous bodies. Published lists of such authorities differ according to the purposes tor which the lists are required. For instance, the 1978-79 Report of the New South Wales Auditor-General refers to the accounts of some 219 statutory bodies and various public authorities. These are authorities having independent financial operations subject to audit.
  2. , (3) and (4) With very minor exceptions, Commonwealth funds are not provided directly to these authorities. The exceptions arise in cases where such authorities are among bodies that are eligible for Commonwealth assistance under various programs.

Funds made available to the State under the personal income tax sharing arrangements and through the State Government Loan Council borrowing programs are intended for use by the New South Wales Government as it sees fit: the Commonwealth does not seek to determine the manner in which they are expended. This is in accordance with the Commonwealth’s Federalism Policy which emphasises the need for the States and local government to determine their own priorities within their spheres. Accordingly, it is not possible to say to what extent such funds may have been used by the State to fund the activities of the authorities.

The Commonwealth also provides financial assistance to New South Wales (and to the other States) by way of specific purpose payments. Through these payments the Commonwealth assists and encourages the States to pursue priorities they share. As a general rule, however, the Commonwealth does not prescribe the detailed administrative arrangements for expenditure of these funds by State Governments. The extent to which such funds may be channelled through State statutory authorities is therefore not known to the Commonwealth.

Unemployment Benefits (Question No. 2403)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs say that his Department does not designate areas as of ‘high ‘ or Mow’ employment for the purpose of enforcing the work test; if so, (a) does the Department of Social Security designate the areas as such; and (b) on what basis is this done.
  2. ) What guidelines are given to applicants for unemployment benefits so that they can know whether they are moving to an area which may disqualify them from receiving unemployment benefit.
Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has advised me that he has not made any public statement in relation to the designation of areas for unemployment benefit work test purposes. He has also advised me that within the CES, determination of an area as one of poor employment prospects is governed solely by individual circumstances. For example, while a certain area may be regarded as one of poor employment prospects’ in the case of say a general labourer, the same qualification may not apply to a qualified tradesman. Discretion in this matter is exercised by the CES Manager who is best situated to make an informed assessment. There is no designation of areas of ‘high’ or ‘low’ employment by my Department.
  2. The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has also advised that the CES recommends to clients that they discuss in advance any proposed move to a new area. Arrangements can be made for an assessment of the inquirer’s employment prospects in the area concerned, and, if requested, the CES will initiate employment action. In situations where, in the opinion of the CES Manager, and unemployment benefit recipient has moved, without good and sufficient reason, to an area which provides little or no employment prospects he will be advised that the Department of Social Security will be notified that he has failed to satisfy the work test.

Unemployment Benefit Work Test (Question No. 2411)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What instructions have been given to offices of the Department of Social Security regarding the number of jobs for which people must apply before they pass the work test to receive unemployment benefit?
  2. ) In what circumstances, and how often, must employers sign confirmation that unemployed persons have applied for jobs with them?
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am advised that no instructions have been issued by the Central Office of the Department of Social Security to its officers that unemployed people must apply for a specific number of jobs before they qualify for unemployment benefit.

Officers have been informed that, when considering whether a claimant or beneficiary has taken reasonable steps to obtain work, factors such as his age, mobility, qualifications, work history and geographic location, together with knowledge of the number and type of job opportunities may be taken into consideration. I am also informed that a local instruction issued in one State, in addition to stating the factors mentioned above as being relevant, has suggested that in some situations where good job opportunities exist it might reasonably be expected that contacts with prospective employers exceed, say, 7 a week. However, a decision is made in respect of each individual in the light of the particular circumstances of his case.

  1. Employers are not generally asked for written confirmation that unemployed persons have applied for jobs with them. When reviewing a person’s entitlement or where doubt exists, the Department may check the data supplied by a claimant or beneficiary about his efforts to obtain work. In the first instance the claimant or beneficiary may be asked to produce any documentation he holds such as copies of job applications, acknowledgement of job applications or advices of unsuccessful applications. Where doubt exists contact may be made with prospective employers named as having been approached regarding vacancies but for which no documentation is held.

Child Accident Prevention Foundation of Australia (Question No. 2414)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social

Security, upon notice, on 20 February1980:

  1. Is the$1m grant to the Child Accident Prevention Foundation of Australia from the Commonwealth Government subject to any conditions or evaluation.
  2. ) Is any comparably sized grant given unconditionally in the health or welfare field.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Government’s grant of up to $lm, the first $500,000 of which was paid to the Child Accident Prevention Foundation in July 1 979, is to be applied for the purposes of the Foundation, as specified in its Memorandum and Articles of Association.

The remainder of the grant, an amount not exceeding $500,000, is also subject to an additional condition, in that the Commonwealth will contribute $1 for each $1 received by the Foundation from State Governments (up to the $500,000 maximum).

Grants to organisations by my Department are provided for specified purposes, and are therefore conditional to the extent that they must be applied for those purposes.

Department of Social Security: Review Officers (Question No. 2444)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) How many review officers are engaged in each office of the Department of Social Security in interviewing dissatisfied claimants wishing to appeal against adverse decisions of the Department.
  2. Are review officer contact statistics kept regularly in the form in which they appear in the Administrative Review Council Second Consultative Paper; if so, can these be made available on a quarterly or other appropriate basis for all Social Security offices; if not, what information can be obtained about the workload and effectiveness of review officers, including (a) the numbers which go forward to Social Security Appeals Tribunals; (b) the numbers which are conceded on the spot; and (c) the numbers which are withdrawn.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) ‘Review officer’ is not an official designation with the Department of Social Security. Rather, the term refers to one or more officers identified within an office and whose duties include a review of decisions made in respect of a claimant’s application for benefit/allowance/pension. The facility is available to claimants who have dealings with any of the155 officers of the Department.
  2. The statistics which appear in the Administrative Review Council second Consultative Paper relate basically to New South Wales and were specifically collated for the Administrative Review Council. Statistics in this form have not been collected or maintained throughout Australia. The collection of national statistics on review operations is presently being examined. The following statistics for New South Wales for 1979 are however available: number of reviews conducted- 4,267; number of decisions varied upon review- 1,804; number of decisions not varied upon review- 2,463. It is known that 542 appeals were lodged with Social Security Appeals Tribunals in respect of decisions which had been the subject of those 4,267 reviews; other appeals may also have been lodged. Some measure of the procedure can be guaged from the fact that the number of appeals being lodged with Social Security Appeals Tribunals has fallen substantially since the introduction of this review process. The number of appeals lodged with the Tribunals throughout Australia in 1979 was 7,227. In 1978 the corresponding figure was 14, 142.

Colleges of Advanced Education: Flow-on of Wage Increases (Question No. 2533)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has a 4 per cent work value wage increase, recently granted to the New South Wales Public Service, flowed on to non-academic staff in colleges of advanced education in the State, but not in universities.
  2. Have such flow-ons always occurred in the past, by long-standing informal agreement.
  3. Has any pressure of any kind been applied by the Government to universities to resist flow-on and has any discussion regarding provision of supplementary funding to cover the flow-on taken place between the Tertiary Education Commission and the Government.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The salary rates of non-academic staff at universities and colleges of advanced education are governed by the industrial awards and agreements relating to the various categories of employment or, in the absence of formal awards or agreements, by individual arrangements between the institutions and their employees.

Since 1974, supplementary funding has been provided to universities and colleges of advanced education for increases in salaries and other costs in accordance with movements in indexes maintained by the Tertiary Education Commission.

The non-academic salaries component of recurrent grants is adjusted in accordance with movements in the index of general salaries. This index is derived from movements in salaries and wages of positions in the Australian Public Service located in work areas and with designations broadly similar to representative non-academic staff positions.

In view of these arrangements it has not been necessary for there to be any discussion with the Tertiary Education Commission regarding provision of supplementary funding.

Funding of Residential Accommodation for Intellectually Handicapped Adults (Question No. 2555)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 18 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Have the guidelines for the funding of residential accommodation for intellectually handicapped adults changed in the last two or three years; if so, when were the changes made.
  2. Were organisations which had applied for funding informed of these changes.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) There has been no change to the guidelines for the funding of residential accommodation for intellectually handicapped adults. These guidelines are set out in the Acts and explanatory leaflets relating to the Handicapped Persons Welfare program and the Aged or Disabled Persons Accommodation program.

As part of a world-wide trend away from large-scale institutional care, some emphasis has been given towards the provision of residential facilities for the intellectually handicapped in smaller home-style units located in appropriate areas.

However the Handicapped Persons Assistance program continues to support a great diversity of services.

Invalid Pensions: Reviews (Question No. 2559)

Senator Grimes:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister received telegrams, letters and deputations regarding the current review of invalid pensions; if so, how many.
  2. How many invalid pensions have been reviewed since October 1979, in each State and what has been the result of these reviews in each State.
  3. How many invalid pensions were reviewed in each State for the periods:

    1. July 1976-June 1977;
    2. July 1977-June 1978;
    3. July 1978-June 1979; and
    4. July 1979-December 1979.
  4. How many invalid pensions were terminated as a result of those reviews.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. ) Approximately 40 representations have been received on the question of invalid pension reviews so far this year. (2), (3) and (4) Under the Pensioner Entitlement Review Program all invalid pensioners are selected annually for review and receive a questionnaire asking for details of their circumstances at that time. The selection is normally timed to coincide with the anniversary of grant of pension. In addition, there are other special reviews, e.g., medical reviews, reviews related to possible earnings and a child attaining16 years, etc. Historical data about these reviews is not held in the computer record. To obtain this type of information it would be necessary to undertake a considerable amount of clerical effort to physically examine every invalid pension paper file in all offices.

Mr Robert O’Sullivan: Part.time Employment with Australian Broadcasting Commission (Question No. 2578)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 1 8 March1 980:

Is Mr Robert O’Sullivan, who at one time worked on a part-time basis with the Australian Broadcasting Commission in Cairns, still employed as an electorate assistant or in any other capacity by the Honourable D. Thomson, M.P., Minister for Science and the Environment; if so, will he still be able to work on a part-time basis for the Australian Broadcasting Commission?

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Yes. Mr O’Sullivan is no longer employed on a part-time basis by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and while he is employed on the staff of the Minister for Science and the Environment, Mr O’Sullivan has indicated he will not be working on a part-time basis for the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Mr Robert O’Sullivan; Part time Employment with Australian Broadcasting Commission (Question No. 2593)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 March 1980:

Did Mr Robert O’Sullivan work on a part-time basis for the Australian Broadcasting Commission in Cairns at any time when he was employed as an electorate assistant, or in any other capacity, by the Honourable D.Thomson, M.P.?

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Yes. I refer the honourable senator to my letter to him of 6 March 1 980 and to Senator Chaney ‘s answer to his Question Without Notice of 5 March 1980 (Senate Hansard, 19 March 1980, page 782).

Overseas Investment in Australian Hospitals (Question No. 2596)

Senator O’Byrne:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 March1980:

Has Humana Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary Humana (Aust.), ever applied for Foreign Investment Review Board approval to invest in an Australian private hospital?

Senator Carrick:
LP

-The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No.

Pensioner Health Benefit Cards (Question No. 2627)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 March 1980:

What is the estimated cost in a full year to the Commonwealth of providing pensioner health benefit cards to all: (a) age pensioners; (b) invalid pensioners; (c) widow pensioners; (d) supporting parents; (e) sickness beneficiaries; (f) unemployment beneficiaries; and (g) special beneficiaries.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Minister for Health has advised that the estimated additional full-year costs of extending to all persons in those categories mentioned by the honourable senator the same health and pharmaceutical benefits as are available to holders of Pensioner Health Benefits cards would be as follows:

age pensioners, $47.8m;

b) invalid pensioners, $6.6m;

widow pensioners, $5.1 m;

supporting parent beneficiaries, $ 1.3m;

sickness beneficiaries, $ 10.7m; (0 unemployment beneficiaries, $49.4m;

special beneficiaries, $2.4m.

There would be further costs if other fringe benefits available to holders of Pensioner Health Benefits cards were extended to all persons in groups (a) to (g) above but information on which to base a reliable estimate of these further costs is not available in respect of sickness, unemployment and special beneficiaries. In respect of age, invalid and widow pensioners and supporting parent beneficiaries, however, it is estimated that the full-year cost would be of the order of$5m (based on the assumption that the usage of the concessions would be the same as among existing holders of Pensioner Health Benefits cards).

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme Allowance (Question No. 2637)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 1 April 1980:

  1. ) Who determines which courses should be included in the list of approved courses for which the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS ) allowance is granted.
  2. What criteria are used in making the decision whether to include or exclude a particular course.
  3. Are students studying at the Bible College of South Australia eligible for the TEAS allowance; if not, why not.
  4. Are students of other theological colleges eligible for the TEAS allowance.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. ) The Student Assistance Act (Section 10) provides that courses for which benefits are provided under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme require the approval of the Minister for Education.
  2. Full-time bachelor, diploma, certificate and like courses at universities, colleges of advanced education and TAFE institutions are normally approved as a matter of course, unless the courses (a) are conducted on behalf of some other organisation; (b) are in the nature of hobby courses; and (c) consist wholly or substantially of studies in religion. A limited number of courses are also approved at non-government post-secondary institutions. The main requirement for these courses is that they have been accepted for Commonwealth funding assistance.
  3. No. Commonwealth financial assistance is not provided for courses in religion at theological colleges.
  4. No, for the same reason as (3).

National Consultative Council on Social Welfare: First Report (Question No. 2651)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 15 April 1980:

  1. ) In the First Report of the National Consultative Council on Social Welfare in which its Income Security Committee states it set out to answer four questions posed by the Minister, are Questions 1,2 and 4 given with comment.
  2. What was Question 3 and why is it missing from that Section of the Report.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. ) Question 2 as published was in fact Question 3.

A paragraph containing Question 2 was inadvertently omitted from the document presented by the National Consultative Council on Social Welfare.

The following paragraph should be inserted on page 7 of the Council’s First Report after the phrase ‘we believe best meets these objectives’ at the end of the third paragraph under Question 1. Question 2 then becomes Question 3 and the new Question 2 is as follows:

  1. 2 Are the current social security provisions (family allowances, payments to pensioners and beneficiaries for children, etc.) and current income tax arrangements meeting those objectives?

Current social security provisions and current income tax arrangements are not meeting the objective of fairness to families with children. The reason for this is that family allowances and payments for children to pensioners and beneficiaries have not been indexed since at least 1976 (since 1965 in the case of the guardian’s allowance), whereas the tax rate and the dependent spouse rebate have been indexed. This means that the relative position of families with children has necessarily deteriorated vis-a-vis those without children. In other words, there has been a transfer of resources through the tax/welfare system from those with children to those without children. The group of taxpayers that has suffered most since 1 975-76 are sole parents on the minimum wage. Their relative position has deteriorated sharply because the introduction of income tax on widows’ pensions and supporting mothers’ benefit was only partially offset by the introduction of family allowances and by the increase, in that year, of the sole parent rebate. Sole parents on welfare have also lost out, relative to other beneficiaries. The plight of the sole parent families was highlighted in the recent ACOSS/DSS survey into emergency relief that shows that sole parents with dependent children, a group constituting 8.8 per cent of the population, make up between 50 per cent and 60 per cent of all recipients of emergency relief. ‘

Social Security Benefits: Terminations (Questions No. 2662)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister, for Social Security, upon notice, on16 April 1980:

  1. How many unemployment beneficiaries had their benefits terminated, in each Social Security office, in each State, in the year ending 29 February1980.
  2. How many were: (a) adults; and (b) juniors.
  3. Were the reasons for termination classified in each office, if not, why not.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Although I am not able to advise the number of unemployment beneficiaries in each Department of Social Security Regional Office who had their benefits terminated in the year ending 29 February 1980, I am advised that an estimated 799,000 unemployment benefits have been terminated in Australia for the period.

Estimates for the 155 Social Security Regions cannot be prepared without very considerable effort. I am not prepared to direct that the staff resources which would be required be diverted from more essential duties.

  1. and (3) See my answer to Question No. 2410 (Hansard, 15 April 1980).

Review of Social Security Operations in the Northern Territory (Question No. 2663)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Does the Review of Social Security operations in the Northern Territory in its report state that in areas covered by the ‘Unemployment Benefits Northern Territory’ (UBNT) system the ratio of job vacancies to registered unemployed is 1:171.
  2. Does the report also state that there is consequently no significant argument for retaining the UBNT system and that unemployed persons in that area should be allowed to qualify for another more realistic and long-term benefit; if so, was the review acted upon, and how many persons in the Alice Springs region were transferred to other long-term benefits.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) As indicated in my answer to Senate Question 2437 (Senate Hansard, page 1452, 15 April 1980) the review of operations in the Northern Territory was an internal one and the Department of Social Security considered the report an internal working document. The UBNT payment arrangement, the ratio of unemployed to job vacancies and other associated issues were among matters considered by the Review, and which are continually subject to on-going review by the Department. I am not prepared to make any details of this confidential internal working document public.

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (Question No. 2670)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many students applied for: (a) living at home; and (b) independent allowances under the Tertiary Education Allowance Scheme (TEAS) in each of the years from 1975 to 1980.
  2. How many were unsuccessful in each of these years.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2) The statistics collected by the Department of Education on TEAS applicants do not include a break up into categories of allowance applied for, because in many cases students ineligible for one category of allowance may be eligible for another category.

The numbers of applicants, applicants ruled ineligible at time of assessment and TEAS beneficiaries by category of allowance payable in respect of the years 1975-79 (as at 30 June each year) are provided below:

Of the number ruled ineligible, the majority would fail to satisfy academic requirements or fail to qualify under the means test. It should be noted that prior to 1977 students were encouraged to apply early before their examination results were known. This resulted in much larger numbers applying and being ruled ineligible on academic grounds in 1975 and 1976 than subsequently.

Lucas Heights Nuclear Facility (Question No. 2684)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

How many persons employed or formerly employed at the Lucas Heights nuclear facility during the period between the commencement of operation of the facility in 1957 and 31 December 1 979, have died of cancer.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The number of persons employed or formerly employed at the Lucas Heights nuclear facility between 1957 and 1979 who died of cancer is not known.

As pointed out in the Second Report of the Survey of Health of Employees in the Research Establishment of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission at Lucas Heights, Sydney (Chapter 7- Radiation and Carcinogenesis) it was not possible to obtain adequate information on cancer amongst former employees from existing records nor by any other means available to the Survey.

Tax on Interest from Savings (Question No. 2689)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 7 April 1 980:

Will the Minister consider granting any form of relief for tax payable on the interest from savings, where the interest rate is lower than the rate of inflation.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The income tax law is and always has been structured in terms of monetary income and outgoings. Quite apart, therefore, from its implications for the financial markets, the honourable senator’s suggestion would put a single category of income out of step with others. The Government, moreover, prefers to concentrate on providing cures for the basic causes of inflation rather than palliatives.

Unemployment (Question No. 2719)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 22 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did a recently released survey by the Bureau of Statistics show that about 74,000 Australians between the ages of 1 6 and 65 have been discouraged from looking for work, most of whom gave lack of available jobs in their area or line of work as the reason for not actively looking for work.
  2. Are these discouraged jobs seekers officially classified as outside the workforce and not included in the Bureau’s official unemployment estimate; if so, why.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Australian Bureau of Statistics survey- Persons not in the Labour Force, Australia, September 1979 (Preliminary)- showed 74,000 persons who wanted a job but were not actively looking for work because they believed they would not be able to find a job for any of the following reasons: they were considered by employers to be too young or too old; they had language or racial difficulties; they lacked the necessary training, skills or experience; or there were no jobs in their locality or line of work.
  2. Yes. The Australian Statistician advises that this treatment is in accordance with the present recommendation of the International Labour Office, that in order to be classified as unemployed a person should be actively seeking work.

Age Pension: Entitlement of Immigrants (Question No. 2731)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 28 April 1 980:

  1. How long must British immigrants reside in Australia before being entitled to an age pension.
  2. How long must non-British immigrants reside in Australia before being entitled to similar benefits.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Section 2 1 of the Social Services Act 1947 provides that a person is residentially qualified to receive an Australian age pension if he is residing in, and is physically present in, Australia on the date on which he lodges his claim for a pension and has at any time been continuously resident in Australia for a period of not less than ten years. That section further provides that the requirement often years continuous residence may be satisfied, or reduced, in cases where a claimant has had more than one period of residence in Australia, at least one of which exceeds five years but is less than ten years in duration, and the aggregate of which exceeds ten years.

Section 137 of the Social Services Act 1947 authorises regulations made under the Act to modify or adapt that Act in its application to cases affected by any agreement with the Government of another country ‘providing for reciprocity in matters relating to pensions, allowances, endowments or benefits under this Act’. Such regulations have been made for the purpose of giving effect to Australia’s agreement on social security with the United Kingdom which provides that a person living permanently in Australia may be treated for age pension purposes as having resided in Australia:

  1. during any period of residence in the United Kingdom;
  2. during periods of absence from the United Kingdom if, during those absences, the person paid or was credited with United Kingdom national insurance contributions; and
  3. during the period of the person’s journey to Australia if such did not exceed thirteen weeks.

The benefit of that agreement which, on the basis of reciprocity, also imposes obligations on the United Kingdom to meet the social security needs of former residents of Australia in that country, is available to any person able to satisfy the above qualifications regardless of nationality.

Pensions Payable in Australia by Foreign Governments (Question No. 2735)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 28 April 1980:

  1. What amounts were paid in the last financial year as pensions to:

    1. nationals and
    2. b) former nationals now resident in Australia by the following countries: (i) Britain (ii) New Zealand (iii) Canada (iv) Italy (v) Greece (vi) Malta (vii) France.
  2. For what other countries does the Government have records on such payments.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The information requested by the honourable senator is not available from my Department. Pension payments by other countries to their nationals and former nationals are made direct by the governments concerned.

Student Organisations (Amenities and Services) Statute (Question No. 2744)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 28 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) On what dates has the Australian National University Council met since 15 November 1979.
  2. When did the Council first consider the draft Student Organisations (Amenities and Services) Statute.
  3. 3 ) On what occasions has it been considered by Council since that date.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 14 March, 9 May 1980.
  2. 9 May 1980.
  3. No occasions.

Student Organisations (Amenities and Services) Statute (Question No. 2745)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 28 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) On what dates has the Standing Committee of the Australian National University Council met since 15 November 1979.
  2. Who are the members of the Standing Committee.
  3. When did the Standing Committee first consider the draft Student Organisations (Amenities and Services) Statute.
  4. On what occasions has it been considered by the Standing Committee since that date.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 14 December 1 979, 8 February 1980, 11 April 1980.
  2. Pro-Chancellor (Mr Justice R. A. Blackburn) (Chairman), Vice-Chancellor (Professor D. A. Low), Deputy ViceChancellor (Professor I. G. Ross) (Acting Deputy ViceChancellor) (Professor D. M. Griffin- from 1.2.80), Deputy Chairman, Board of the Institute of Advanced Studies (Professor R. G. Ward), Deputy Chairman, Board of the School of General Studies (Professor R. StC. Johnson), Chairman, Finance Committee (Mr L. T. Hinde), Chairman, Buildings and Grounds Committee (Mr A. J. R. Yencken), President, ANU Students ‘ Association (Miss L. M. Tarrant), Professor J. H. Carver, Mr A. C. Copeman, Dr M. F. C. Day, Dr R. E. Klugman.
  3. 11 April 1980.
  4. No other occasions.

Student Organisations (Amenities and Services) Statute (Question No. 2746)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 28 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Who are the ‘Advisers on Legislation’ to whom draft statutes are submitted for consideration by the Australian National University Council.
  2. Are all statutes submitted to the Advisers on Legislation.
  3. 3 ) On what occasions has the draft Student Organisations (Amenities and Services) Statute been referred to the Advisers on Legislation.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Professor A. D. Hambly (Chairman), Mr J. L. R. Davis, Mr G. J. Lindell, Dr D. C. Pearce, Mr R. C. Refshauge.
  2. Yes.
  3. 23 April 1980.

Australian National University Council’s Committee on Student Organisations (Question No. 2747)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 28 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Australian National University Council ‘s Committee on Student Organisations.
  2. When did that Committee first meet to consider implementation of section 29a of the Australian National University Act 1946 as amended by the Australian National University Amendment Act 1979, passed by Parliament on 15 November 1979.
  3. On what subsequent occasions did the Committee meet to consider this matter and what were the results of each meeting in terms of progress made towards defining amenities and services provided by student organisations as required by the Act.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Mr T. F. C. Lawrence (Chairman), the ViceChancellor (Professor D. A. Low) (ex officio), the Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Mr C. G. Plowman), Professor H. W. Arndt, Mr P. J. Grimshaw, Mr D. W. Smith, the Presidents of the five recognised student organisations-Miss L. Tarrant (Students’ Association), Mr P. Wood (Research Students’ Association), Miss C. Matthews (Law Society), Mr D. Cocking (Sports Union), Mr I. Nolan (Union).
  2. 6 March 1980.
  3. The Committee considered a first draft of a Student Organisations (Amenities and Services) Statute on 6 March 1980, It made suggestions for further development of the draft,

The Committee met again on 2 April 1980 and considered a second draft of the Statute. It gave further advice to the Draftsman, The third draft of the Statute, incorporating amendments suggested by the Committee was distributed on 22 April 1980.

The Committee met further on 7 May 1980. It had before it the fifth draft of the Statute, which had been considered by the University’s Advisers on Legislation. The Committee rcommended minor amendment to the fifth draft, for consideration by the Council of the University on 9 May 1 980,

Joint Land Resources Study: Goodparla and Gimbat Areas (Question No. 2749)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 30 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) When was the joint land resources study of the Goodparla and Gimbat areas in the Northern Territory established.
  2. How often has the study met, and what is the anticipated date of the report.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Arrangements for the joint land resources study of the Goodparla and Gimbat areas were finalised with the Northern Territory Government on 10 September 1979.
  2. In the period from late 1979 to early 1980, three meetings of Commonwealth and Northern Territory officials were held to identify the data available for the area. On 6 May 1980, a meeting of representatives of the Department of Home Affairs, Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, CSIRO, Northern Territory Department of the Chief Minister, Northern Territory Conservation Commission, Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Authority and the Northern Land Council was held in Darwin.

At this meeting, it was agreed that existing information would be collated by the respective members of the study group and additional field work undertaken if necessary, with a view to a report being prepared by 30 September 1980 for consideration by the Commonwealth and Northern Territory Governments.

Further meetings will be held and every effort will be made to adhere to the timetable.

Loss of Revenue from Tax Concessions (Question No. 2780)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 May 1980:

What is the estimated loss of revenue resulting from the tax concessions announced by the Prime Minister on 14 April 1980 for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82.

Senator Carrick:
LP

-The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

As I indicated on IS May 1980 in the debate on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1980 it is very hard to give precise estimates of the cost of the measure to allow immediate tax deductions for the whole of certain capital expenditures by primary producers as a means of providing immediate assistance in respect of the very severe drought that has affected large parts of Australia, The best estimates that are available are $8m for 1980-81 and $38m in the first full year.

Government Expenditure (Question No. 2781)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 13 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) Will the Government spend $293,000 on the purchase and free distribution of various items including tapes of ‘God Save the Queen’ and ‘Advance Australia Fair’, as reported in The Hellenic Herald, dated 1 4 April 1 980; if so, what is the exact nature of these items.
  2. To whom does the Government intend to freely distribute these items.
  3. What is the justification of such expenditure, given the extent to which the Government has been forced to cut back on other areas of funding, such as social welfare and education.
Senator Scott:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Resources · NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government has approved the provision of a total of $295,000 in the financial year 1979-80 for the purchase of special free-issue items to meet requests from Members of Parliament and the community in general. The Australian National Flag and cassette recordings of the National Anthem, ‘God Save The Queen’ and the National Tune, ‘Advance Australia Fair’, are issued free to approved organisations and groups at the request of Members of Parliament. Coloured photographs of Her Majesty The Queen are distributed free to any organisation or person who will display them in a proper and dignified manner.
  2. The National Flag and the cassette recordings are distributed to those organisations and groups indicated in the statement I made to Parliament on 10 May 1979 (House of Representatives Hansard pages 2082-3 ).
  3. National pride in Australia and respect for the symbols of our national unity among community service organisations and groups throughout the country and the community in general have resulted in considerable demand for the free-issue items. All Members of the House of Representatives and all but four Senators have made requests for freeissue items.

Sales Tax on Motor Vehicles (Question No. 2785)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 4 May 1 980:

Has the Government given consideration to exempting locally produced motor vehicles from sales tax.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Suggestions that ‘locally produced motor vehicles’ might be exempt from sales tax are subject to a number of obvious short-comings, not least of which would be the difficulty of deriving a satisfactory definition for such a purpose. If adopted they would, moreover, be very costly in terms of revenue forgone and would be directly contrary to Australia ‘s legal obligations under the GATT.

Ms Bobbi Sykes: Scholarship at Harvard University (Question No. 2804)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 14 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has Ms Bobbi Sykes, a prominent female black activist, been offered a scholarship at Harvard University and been refused financial assistance by the Australian Department of Education and Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
  2. Was Ms Sykes advised by the Minister for Education that the selection committee which recommends Aboriginal persons for awards has a majority of Aboriginal members.
  3. 3 ) Is this in fact not the case and is there an equal number of Aborigines and people of European descent on the committee.
  4. Is Ms Sykes likely to receive any assistance at all from the Australian government to take up the scholarship which is seldom awarded to Australians whether black or white.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. My understanding is that Ms Bobbi Sykes has been offered a place by Harvard University to undertake a masters degree course. I am not aware that she has been offered a scholarship or any financial assistance from the university.

Ms Sykes applied for one of the Aboriginal Overseas Study Awards administered by my Department. These awards are competitive: ten are offered each year. Ms Sykes reached the short list but she was not finally successful in obtaining an award.

My Department does not have funds available for the assistance of individuals outside established programs such as the Aboriginal Overseas Study Awards Scheme.

  1. Yes.
  2. lt is not the case that the National Selection Committee for the Aboriginal Overseas Study Awards Scheme has an equal number of Aborigines and people of European descent.

The Committee comprises a Chairman, provided by my Department and one representative nominated by each of the following:

National Aboriginal Conference

National Aboriginal Education Committee

Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

The Committee is serviced by a Secretary who is also an officer of my Department. The Secretary does not have a voice in the actual selection of the awardees. The present Chairman is of European descent but the three nominated members of the Committee are Aborigines.

  1. I am investigating the matter to see whether any form of Australian Government assistance is available for Ms Sykes.

Survey of Resources in Government Schools (Question No. 2807)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 14 May 1980:

  1. Is the Australian Council of Educational Research conducting a survey into resources in Government schools; if so, what is the nature of the survey and in what States is it being conducted.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The ACER was commissioned by the Australian Education Council in 1978 to conduct a study of the policy and practice of staffing and resources for government schools in Australia and New Zealand, and work began in February 1 979. The terms of reference of the study are:

1 ) To examine existing policies, procedures and trends relating to the allocation of staff and resources to and within Australian and New Zealand schools.

To inquire into difficulties faced by school systems and schools in allocating staff and resources to and within schools.

To examine measures that are being taken at the present time at various levels to overcome these difficulties.

To review new developments and alternative arrangements in staffing schools.

To recommend action which can be taken by schools and school systems to improve existing arrangements or overcome problems experienced in staffing schools.

To recommend appropriate field studies or action research projects which school systems can carry out and which will enable the trying out of creative and practical ways of re-organising staff at the school level.

To develop proposals which school systems in the longer term might adopt for the future direction of policies and procedures concerning the allocation of staff and resources to and within schools.

The study is being conducted in primary and secondary government schools in all States, the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory and in New Zealand.

Social Security: Invalid Pension (Question No. 2816)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 13 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) What is the estimated cost in a year of allowing invalid pensioners to remain on invalid pension after they have reached age pension eligibility.
  2. How many invalid pensioners were transferred from invalid pension to age pension in: (a) 1977-78; and (b) 1978-79.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There is no additional cost in allowing invalid pensioners who are qualified for age pension to remain on invalid pension. The estimated present annual liability in respect of invalid pensions and allowances paid to persons of age pension age not qualified for age pension is $ 1 7m.
  2. The number of invalid pensioners transferred from invalid pension to age pension in 1977-78 and 1978-79 was 29,738 and 15,050 respectively. The total for 1977-78 includes some 1 5,500 invalid pensioners who had reached age pension age in previous years but had not been transferred to age pension.

Social Security: Agreement with Italy (Question No. 2819)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 13 May 1980:

  1. How many discussions ofan exploratory nature’, as mentioned in the Minister’s answer to Question No. 2405 (see Senate Hansard, page 1610, dated 21 April 1980) have been held between delegations of officials from Italy and Australia concerning a social security agreement since 1 973.
  2. ) What progress has been made.
  3. ) What matters were specifically indentified as requiring further study and which will entail correspondence between the officials.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Australian and Italian officials have met for discussions of an exploratory nature on two occasions since 1973- in Rome in June 1975 and in Canberra in December 1979. In addition, the Director-General had brief talks in Rome in January 1 979 and has also discussed possible policy approaches and attitudes in brief exchanges with senior Italian government officials on three other occasions.
  2. The discussions have enabled officials to identify problems and difficulties in achieving a mutually acceptable basis for reciprocity, given the widely diverse Australian and Italian schemes of social security, and to put forward different approaches that might be considered for their resolution. As I have said previously, the matter is complicated by out reluctance to disadvantage persons already benefiting, or likely to benefit, from the generous existing arrangements for portability of Australian pensions.
  3. It would not be practicable to detail all the matters which will require further study. Officers are engaged in a general study of all facets of the inter-relations both of the Italian and Australian Social Security systems.

Social Security: Funded Child Care Projects (Question No. 2820)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 13 May 1980:

What directly funded child care projects were: (a) approved; and (b) funded in each House of Representatives electorate in 1979-80, and what amount of money was spent in each category.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

After the close of the 1979-80 financial year I will request the Department to advise what information could readily be made available.

Department of Industry and Commerce: Appointments of Senior Staff (Question No. 2833)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 15 May 1980:

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 Industry and Commerce since December 1975 who were not previously public servants.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Dr K.. A. Tucker, Assistant Director Level 1, Bureau of Industry Economics

The Department of Industry and Commerce came into being in its present form in November 1976. Therefore the above information relates only to appointments since that date.

Department of Employment and Youth Affairs: Appointments of Senior Staff (Question No. 2842)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 1 5 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 Employment and Youth Affairs since December 1975 who were not previously public servants.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Department of Employment and Youth Affairs was created on 5 December 1978. Since that date no such appointment has been made.

Appointments to Statutory Authorities (Question No. 2860)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 15 May 1980:

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 Industry and Commerce.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Nuclear Industry Accidents

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– On 23 November 1979 (Hansard, pages 2874-5) Senator Bishop asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the alleged deaths by cancer of security officers involved in testing at Maralinga and Woomera.

The Minister for Health has provided the following information:

I refer the honourable senator to the Ministerial Statement of the Leader of the Government in the Senate on 15 May 1980 (Hansard, pages 2288-94).

Tertiary Students: Enrolments into Student Unions

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 20 March 1980 (Hansard, page 873) Senator MacGibbon asked me in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Education the following question without notice:

Is the Minister aware of reports that the Queensland Government will investigate complaints that tertiary students are being coerced into joining student unions? What steps have been taken by the Federal Government to encourage State legislation similar to the very successful Australian National University Amendment Bill to prevent compulsory payments to national student bodies by students under State jurisdiction? What has been the response of the Queensland Government?

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

I am aware of reports in the press that the Queensland Government will investigate complaints that tertiary students are being coerced into joining student unions. On 2 April 1980 the Queensland Minister for Education responded to a parliamentary question concerning compulsory membership of the students’ union at Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education and made the following points:

there is apparently widespread confusion of student unions with industrial unions.

membership of student unions is compulsory under the Education Act 1964-74.

the compulsory union fee levied is in the nature of an amenities and service fee.

the problem at Darling Downs Institue of Advanced Education had not arisen at the other nine colleges of advanced education and three universities (in Queensland).

the Queensland Government had refrained from adopting the course of action whereby membership of student unions is made voluntary and a compulsory amenities and services fee is imposed.

On 29 May 1978 the Prime Minister wrote to all State Premiers. In the letters to the Premiers of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania, the Prime Minister recommended that their States introduce legislation in respect of student union membership at universities and colleges of advanced education similar to that proposed for the ANU and the Canberra College of Advanced Education and which came into effect on 1 January 1 980. The letters to the Premiers of Victoria and Western Australia took into account that in those States, certain action had already been taken.

The Queensland Government’s reply to the Prime Minister on 25 July 1 978 indicated that it was keeping the question of compulsory student unionism and use of fees under close consideration but that it had opted to endeavour to attain its objectives in ways other than by involving major legislative sanctions. The present situation in Queensland would be as described by the Queensland Minister for Education in his Parliamentary answer of 2 April 1 980 referred to above.

Launceston Student Workshop

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 22 April 1980 (Hansard page 1626) Senator Archer asked me a question without notice about the Launceston Student Workshop. I was able to provide some information at the time, and undertook to provide further details on future funding possibilities.

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

Projects for which the Schools Commission provides initial funding, and which prove successful, are generally considered for subsequent funding by the States within their own priorities. The Launceston Student Workshop has been approved in principle for funding under the Transition Program for 1980. This funding is subject to advice from the Tasmanian authorities as to their intention to take on the long term support of the project, and providing further details about costing for 1980. 1 understand that this advice will be received from the Tasmanian authorities in the near future.

Handicapped Children: Education

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 1 May 1980 (Hansard, page 2020) Senator Robertson asked me, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Education, the following question without notice:

Has the Department of Education studied the methods used in the education of handicapped children by ANSUA A New Start for the Under Achiever Association? If it has not, will he arrange for this to be done so that details of these methods which have proved so successful can be made available to State and Territory Departments of Education?

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

My Department has not undertaken a study of the particular methods used in the education of handicapped children by the New Start for the Under Achiever Association (ANSUA). While involved both directly and through supporting services in assisting in the education of handicapped children, it has not been the function of the Department to evaluate particular methods. It would be appropriate that such evaluation should be undertaken by the authorities directly responsible for education in the classroom, that is, the State Departments of Education or their counterparts in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, and by the non-government school authorities. I suggest that ANSUA might wish to approach these authorities which are directly involved in this way in providing services for children whose educational progress is inhibited by various forms of handicap or learning difficulties.

Test Cricket Telecasts (Question No. 1686)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 6 June 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has any offer been made by the Channel 9 Television network to the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) to enable the Commission to telecast cricket Tests to viewers who will not be serviced by the Channel 9 Network or the regional commercial television stations which are to take up the Channel 9 telecast.
  2. What is the estimated number of viewers who will now be denied access to future Test cricket telecasts, but who were previously able to receive such programs through ABC Television.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Subsequent to the agreement between the Australian Cricket Board and the successful bidder for exclusive rights to televise cricket matches organised by the Board, some informal discussions were held between the successful bidder and the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The ABC advises that none of these discussions related to the possibility of the ABC covering Tests, but rather other matches organised by the Cricket Board.
  2. Such an estimate varies significantly depending on what criteria are used in assessing adequacy of television signal, and also to what extent individual commercial operators decide to carry cricket telecasts.

As a guide, I am advised that something less than 2 10,000 people receive a viewable ABC television service but do not receive a viewable commercial television service.

VIP Flight: Visit by Ministers to Middle East (Question No. 1770)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Was the cost of sending the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade and Resources and an accompanying party to the Middle East, $ 10,462.
  2. What was the cost of providing the Royal Australian Air Force BAC 1-11 aircraft to carry this party to the Middle East.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

On 23 April 1980 a document was tabled by Senator Carrick giving details of the costs of all Ministerial travel between 1973 and 1979(pages 1 704- 1712 of Senate Hansard). The costs of my visit are included in that document.

Transfer of 511 Supply Company (Question No. 1889)

Senator Mcintosh:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 1 September 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What action is proposed to transfer 5 1 1 Supply Company from Spring Hill to Byford, and what are the reasons for any such transfer.
  2. ) What will be the future role of the company.
  3. Will 36 civilian employees be affected by the proposed transfer; if so, (a) in what way, (b) what action is proposed to secure, where necessary, alternative employment for these civilians; and (c) what compensation or relocation assistance will be available.
  4. What future use is proposed for the Spring Hill Depot.
  5. What improvements have been effected at Spring Hill in each year from 1 974-75 to 1 978-79, and what was the cost involved.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The decision in relation to the closure of Spring Hill ammunition depot results from the Australia wide rationalisation of Army supply installations announced by the Minister for Defence on 4 September 1979. A re-assessment of stock holding needs in Western Australia and the availability of storage space at the RAN facility at Byford will enable closure of the Spring Hill facility in early 1 980.
  2. 511 Supply Company is a sub-unit of 5 1 Supply Battalion. The closure of the Spring Hill facility will result in this sub-unit no longer being active. Three military positions will be incorporated into the remaining elements of 5 1 Supply Battalion to provide technical assistance to RAN Byford in relation to Army requirements for the storage of ammunition.
  3. There are currently a total of 1 7 civilian and 16 military positions at 5 1 1 Supply Company, not 36 civilian positions as stated in the question.

    1. With the exception of the three military positions mentioned in (2) above, the positions are to be abolished.
    2. The likely problems to be faced by those civilian staff are acknowledged. They are receiving close attention by my Depanment which, in conjunction with the Public Service Board, is working with the Peak Councils of the staff organisations to identify and re-deploy redundant civilians in suitable positions either elsewhere in the Department of Defence or in other Commonwealth Departments.
    3. Should re-location be necessary removal expenses will be at Departmental expense and these civilians could qualify for an allowance under Public Service Regulation 97. Provision exists in Arbitrators Determination No. 509 of 1977 for income maintenance payments for up to twelve months depending on each individual ‘s entitlements.
  4. At this stage it is proposed that the Department of Defence retain the property but, with the exception of one building, there will be no activity on the site. This one building is a specialist building used as an ammunition repair workshop and is being retained for occasional use since the Byford depot does not have such a facility. There will be no permanent staff but on those occasions that this building is required for use the staff will come from Byford.
  5. 1974-75- Nil, Nil; 1975-76-Replacement of security fencing, $41,500; 1976-77- Replacement of stove in other ranks kitchen, $2,300; Re-roof the administrative building, $1,900; General repairs and painting to 13 buildings, $20,850; Re-surface surrounds to Explosive storehouses, $13,400; Re-new poles and electrical reticulation, $2,500; 1977-78- Upgrade security on one storehouse, $4,200; Upgrade fire alarm system, $1,000; 1978-79-General repairs and painting to eight buildings, $7,900: Repairs to storm water drainage, $4,400; Upgrade laundry facilities in living area, $ 1 5,000; Upgrade security in two storehouses, $9, 700.

Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration (Question No. 1897)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 1 September 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Which recommendations of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration have: (a) been implemented; (b) been implemented in part; and (c) not been implemented.
  2. Which aspects of the recommendations implemented in part have: (a) been implemented; and (b) not been implemented.
  3. Which of the recommendations not implemented: (a) have been rejected; and (b) are still under consideration.
Senator Carrick:
LP

-The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question.

This reply does not follow the structure of the honourable senator’s question but nevertheless attempts to provide the information sought categorised by subject. Further information can be provided if desired by the honourable senator in respect of particular recommendations.

Personnel and Related Matters

Recruitment (Recommendation 127)- the Public Service Board has had the question of delegation of aspects of recruitment practice under study for some lime. Some delegations have been made. For example, departments may now determine when to advertise vacancies as open to persons not permanent officers of the Service. Further, the Board has delegated to specified officers in the Department of Health authority to accept persons as medically fit for appointment to the Service. The question of further recruitment delegation is being examined by the Public Service Board.

Lateral recruitment (Recommendation 128)- 128 (a): see answer in respect of recommendation 127. 128(b): for an indication of opportunities provided for career development see Public Service Board Annual Reports 1978 pages 67-69, 1979 pages 41-45. 128(c): this recommendation has not been accepted. 128 (d): the Public Service Amendment Act 1 978, when proclaimed, will introduce revised arrangements governing the movement of staff from the Public Service to Commonwealth statutory authorities whose staff are covered by the Public Service Act and other public sector employers.

Restoration of benefit entitlements on re-appointment (Recommendation 129)- for details of action taken on this recommendation see Senate Hansard, 23 November 1979, page 2980.

Nationality requirement for appointment (Recommendations 117-119)- the Government has this matter under attention.

Equal employment opportunity (Recommendations 120, 125, 126 (f), 134-147, 160 (c) (v), 183 (c), 334 (e))-for details of action taken see Public Service Board Annual Reports 1977 pages 76-80, 1978 pages 73-77 and 1979 pages 52-57. Recommendations relating to the legislative prohibition of discrimination in government employment are still under consideration.

Character checking for appointment (Recommendation 121)- this recommendation was considered in conjunction with recommendations of the Royal Commission on Security and Intelligence. Revised arrangements for character assessments are currently under consideration in relation to the implementation of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. Further the Minister for Administrative Services has directed that where criminal record information is sought for employment and similar purposes it should be supplied to the subject and not to the third party enquirer, unless the subject has formally waived this right.

Security checks (Recommendation 122)- the Government has announced that security checking will now only take place when it is reasonably expected that public servants will require access to classified matters or areas. The Board has discontinued, as a general practice, the checking prior to employment of all recruits to the Second and Third Division and is currently reviewing, in consultation with relevant permanent heads, changes required as a result of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. A Security Appeals Tribunal is to be established under this Act.

Educational qualifications (Recommendations 1 30- 133)- 130: the Public Service Board takes into account the factors mentioned in this recommendation in reviewing and prescribing educational qualifications. 131: the approach recommended is that taken by the Public Service Board. 132-133: the Public Service Board does not favour the delegation of its powers to set minimum qualifications.

Restrictions on graduate recruitment (Recommendation 123)- the Public Service Amendment Act 1978, when proclaimed, will abolish the 10 per cent restriction on the number of non-specialist graduate recruits.

Preference for ex-servicemen (Recommendation 124)- the Government has decided to retain existing arrangements.

Staff development (Recommendation 160)- action taken on this recommendation is summarised in the Public Service Board’s 1978 annual Report at pages 67-68 and in its 1979 Report at page 44.

Promotion and promotion appeals (Recommendations 161, 163, 165-1 75)- the Government has decided that promotion in the Public Service should be based solely on efficiency. The Government has also decided to streamline measures for selection, promotion and promotion appeals in the Public Service; details were announced by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters on 1 7 September 1979. (See Commonwealth Record, 17-23 September 1979, pages 1393-1394).

Promotion selection (Recommendations 162, 164)- the Public Service Board has issued guidelines on the formation and operation of staff selection committees.

Interviewing (Recommendation 126)- the Public Service Board has issued a training manual on staff selection and guidelines on the formulation and operation of staff selection committees.

Disciplinary procedures (Recommendations 177, 186)- a new discipline code for the Public Service was incorporated in the Public Service Amendment Act 1978.

Information on disciplinary procedures (Recommendation 185)- when the disciplinary provisions introduced by the Public Service Amendment Act 1 978 are proclaimed, the Public Service Board will be issuing a manual of policies and procedures which will be available to management and staff. A short leaflet outlining the main aspects of the disciplinary process and the rights of individuals will also be produced and distributed to staff.

Grievance procedures (Recommendations 183, 187-197, 199)- aspects of these recommendations have been considered by the Public Service Board and the Joint Council. Following an interim Joint Council report, the Board had established a Grievance and Appeals Bureau to provide a focus for all appeals and other grievances now directed to the Board. The Bureau will co-ordinate the investigation and resolution of such appeals and grievances. Outstanding aspects of these recommendations will be considered in the context of further examination of the Royal Commission’s recommendations on co-ordination in Commonwealth employment ( Recommendations 213-217, 221, 333).

Redundancy and early retirement (Recommendations 178-180)- the principles incorporated in the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979 in respect of redundancy, invalidity and inefficiency or limited efficiency of staff are broadly consistent with these recommendations which were, however, framed in the context of the relevant provisions of the Public Service Act. The Redeployment and Retirement Act also provides for voluntary early retirement at age 55.

Abolition of the Divisional structure of the Service (Recommendations 205, 238)- the Government has decided that the Divisional structure of the Public Service should be abolished. (The decision was announced on 28 November 1979; see Commonwealth Record 26 November-2 December 1979, pages 1833-34).

Categories of employment (Recommendations 209-212)-under the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979 temporary staff with more than 12 months service are to be treated in the same way and have the same rights as permanent officers. Further the Public Service Amendment Act 1978 provided for temporary staff with 12 months service to have access to the discipline appeals provisions. Other aspects relating to the distinction between permanent and temporary staff will be examined as priorities permit. In relation to part-time employment, the Public Service Board is at present canvassing with departments and authorities the future role of this form of employment in the Public Service.

Rotation between policy and management/operational areas (Recommendations 27, 243)- the Public Service Board is examining conditions of service and other issues, and monitoring progress. Permanent heads have been asked to take account of recommendation 243 in making selection of staff.

Womens policy units (Recommendation 299)- women’s policy units have been established in the Attorney-General ‘s Department, and the Departments of Education, Health, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and Social Security, the Australian Development Assistance Bureau and the Schools Commission. The Women’s Bureau in the now Department of Employment and Youth Affairs was established in 1963 (it was originally known as the Women’s Section) to promote equality of opportunity for women in employment and to encourage the full use of individual women’s talents and skills. It provides information and advice on issues affecting women in employment. In 1 975 the Public Service Board established the Equal Employment Opportunity Section, now the Equal Employment Opportunity Branch, to develop policy, co-ordinate advice and provide information on equal employment opportunity matters affecting disadvantaged groups, including women, Aboriginals, migrants and handicapped persons within the Australian Public Service. Australia Post, Telecom, the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Department of Housing and Construction have established Equal Employment Opportunity Sections with similar responsibilities in respect of their agencies.

Experiments in organisation and personnel practice (Recommendation 1 1 )- the Public Service Board is continuing work in this area as resources permit.

The role of the Chief Officer (Recommendations 20-21, 54)- the Public Service Board has consulted permanent heads on these recommendations. The recommendations are still being considered.

Staff rotation and exchange (Recommendations 94, 114, 330-33 1 )- the Public Service Board has introduced an Interchange Program to facilitate exchanges of personnel between the Australian Public Service and other parts of the public sector and organisations in the private sector. Details are provided in Public Service Board Annual Reports 1978 pages 5-6 and 1979 pages 5, 117-120. The Board has also delegated to departments authority to arrange permanent transfers of staff when the departments and the officer are in agreement. The Board has suggested, in introducing these arrangements, that departments adopt a liberal attitude towards the release of staff on transfer and make full use of transfers of staff on a planned basis as part of a program of staff development.

Studies assistance (Recommendation 154)- following a Joint Council review of continuing education in the Service, the Board has developed a new studies assistance scheme consistent with this recommendation. Background information is provided in the Public Service Board Annual Report 1979, pages 44-45. New studies assistance guidelines have been promulgated by the Board.

Staff assessment (Recommendations 156-159)- in 1977 the Public Service Board issued guidelines on the development and use of staff appraisal schemes to assist departments on matters of principle in the applications of staff appraisal practices. Again in 1978, following extensive consideration in the Joint Council, the Board issued two further documents to departments: ‘Staff Appraisal Schemes in the Australian

Public Service’ and ‘The Design and Implementation of Staff Appraisal Schemes’. So far as making appraisal reports available to promotion selection and appeal committees is concerned, the policy suggested in these documents is that if the reports are prepared as part of a promotion reporting system then they should be made so available. If appraisal reports are prepared for other purposes however (for example, staff development) it is suggested that they should only be used for those purposes and not be made available to promotion selection or appeal committees. In relation to promotion appeals all relevant documentation, including original selection committee reports, should be provided to Promotion Appeal Committees.

Pre-retirement training (Recommendation 184)- the Public Service Board has issued a retirement planning seminar guide to departments and authorities.

Individual work plans (Recommendation 204)- the factors raised by the recommendations relating to individual work plans are taken into account in the staff utilisation reviews organised by the Public Service Board and departments. So far as recommendation 204 (a) is concerned, duty statements exist for positions in the Service and are freely available to officers.

Delegation of the Public Service Board ‘s power to annul probationary appointments (Recommendation 176)- a decision has not yet been taken on acceptance or rejection of the recommendation.

Research on career patterns (Recommendation 153)- the Public Service Board included in its 1 976 Annual Report the results of a study on career patterns (see pages 106-1 1 1). In June 1978 the Board published a paper entitled ‘Foreign Affairs Officers: A Study of Career Patterns’. The Board is continuing research of this kind as resources permit.

Rights and duties of staff (Recommendations 1, 15, 182)-the Public Service Board issued a set of guidelines on official conduct in October 1979.

Pecuniary interests of officials (Recommendation 198)- the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Duty and Private Interests was made public in November 1979, and the Government has announced that it has accepted virtually the whole of the Committee’s recommendations in regard to Ministers, public servants and other officials. In regard to public servants, the Public Service Board has promulgated the Code of Conduct recommended by the Committee of Enquiry and has notified steps to be taken in relation to the disclosure of interests by public servants and consultants, the acceptance of gifts, travel and hospitality, and the acceptance of business appointments after separation from the Service.

Senior appointments (Recommendations 41, 49)- new principles and procedures for permanent head appointments were incorporated in the Public Service Amendment (First Divisions Officers) Act 1976. See also Public Service Board Annual Report 1977, pages 92-94.

Permanent Heads (Recommendations 51-52)- the Chairman of the Public Service Board has been asked to have regard to these recommendations in developing and administering his responsibilities for senior appointments.

Senior executive staffing (Recommendations 239- 240)- the Government has decided that all senior vacancies in the Public Service should be advertised within the Service and that senior officers should not normally remain in one position from more than 5 to 7 years. The Public Service Board has also encouraged permanent heads to advertise all senior vacancies. Other aspects of these recommendations are being examined by the Board.

Senior staff register (Recommendation 329)- the Public Service Board has established, on the basis of voluntary returns, a biographic register of Second Division staff in the Service and of senior staff in statutory authorities.

Industrial and Related Matters

Conditions of employment in relation to staff dispersal and decentralisation (Recommendation 97)- no action was required on this recommendation as guidelines on consultation arrangements and employment conditions had been established by the time the Royal Commission completed its report.

Salary ranges and groups (Recommendation 155)- the Public Service Board will consider this recommendation as changes occur in the salary structure. In the past salary structures in the Service have been devised on a group by group basis having regard to the factors relevant to salaries for each group, including rates paid for comparable work by other employers. In this the Board has paid attention to the integration of occupational groups within the Service. Continuing attention will be paid to this question as National Wage Case guidelines and other priorities permit.

Personal classification ( Recommendations 148 and 1 50) - following a Public Service Board/Departmental Working Party Review of the grading system applying to Research Scientists in the Department of Defence, scope was found for the introduction of a special performance based promotion system. Promotion procedures similar to those applying to Research Medical Officers are under consideration. In general, these enable officers to claim promotion based upon their satisfying criteria for selection to higher levels. Other areas where there may be further scope for orienting grading systems to the level of contribution of the individual are being kept under notice.

Classification committees (Recommendation 203)- this recommendation has been considered by a Joint Council sub-committe which recommended against establishment of classification committees.

Review of Technical/Professional areas (Recommendation 206)- the Public Service Board is monitoring these areas with a view to improving the structural separation of professional and technical work but is conscious of the constraints of wage indexation guidelines in implementing any recommendations that propose significant change. Clerk and Clerical Assistant structure (Recommendation 207)- the development of an approach to the Commission’s recommendation to review lower grade work in the clerical/administrative area with a view to devolving it to the clerical assistant group is closely linked to the implementation of the Government’s decision to remove the Divisional structure of the Public Service. In the context of reviews of occupational groups in progress the Board had paid particular attention to areas where there is scope for rationalisation of clerical /administrative work and the greater use of clerical assistants.

Other lower level career structure aspects (Recommendations 151 and 1 52 )- the Public Service Board recognises the need for the enhancement of career opportunities for the typing/stenographic group and, for example, encourages the use of multi-role jobs combining typing/secretarial and clerical assistant tasks where they provide efficiency and economy over single-role positions. Removal of unnecessary barriers to career opportunities is one of the factors inherent in the implementation of the Government’s decision to remove the Divisional structure of the Public Service.

Staff organisation involvement in classification activities (Recommendation 208)- following consideration of this matter by the Joint Council, the Public Service Board has issued guidelines for consultation with staff organisations on classification matters.

Discretionary increments (Recommendation149)- this was considered by the Joint Council; no action is planned at this stage.

Staffing of courts (Recommendation 222)- so far as the High Court is concerned the High Court of Australia Act 1979 provides that the Clerk shall engage such staff as are deemed necessary by the Court on terms and conditions determined by the Court with the concurrence of the Public Service Board. Staffing arrangements for other courts are not under consideration at this stage.

Remuneration Tribunal determination (Recommendation 218)- no action is necessary as the Tribunal’s determinations have automatic effect, subject to disallowance by the Parliament.

Jurisdiction of tribunals (Recommendations 244 and 254)- under consideration.

Power of disallowance (Recommendation 245)- under consideration.

Rights of appearance (Recommendation 246)- under consideration.

Recognition of the Public Service Board as employing authority ( Recommendation 247 )- under consideration.

Determining power for the Public Service Board (Recommendation 248)- the Government had decided that the Public Service Act should be amended to give the Public Service Board power to determine conditions of service, subject to Parliamentary disallowance.

Accusations of pace-setting (Recommendation 249)- prior to the introduction of wage indexation in 1975 an important first step in the Public Service Board’s approach to pay fixation was to have regard to rates paid for comparable work by other employers. In forming a view on these matters the Board conducted extensive surveys of market rates of pay itself and subscribed to similar surveys by private management consultants to confirm the Board’s own surveys. Since 1975 the Board has adhered to the wage indexation guidelines of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission under which rates paid by other employers are not regarded as a relevant factor in pay fixation.

More comprehensive awards (Recommendations 250 and 25 1 )- under consideration.

Strike provision of the Public Service Act (Section 66) Recommendation 252)-no action at present contemplated.

Other conciliation and arbitration matters (Recommendation 253)-under consideration,

Code of standards on physical working conditions (Recommendation 256)-a standing committee on staff amenities has been established comprising representatives of the Public Service Board, departments with a policy interest in the provision of amenities and staff organisation peak councils. The Public Service Board has also issued revised amenities standards in the Public Service; these standards are based on Code 305 Personal Facilities issued by the Committee on Occupational Health and Safety in Commonwealth Government Employment.

Flexitime (Recommendation 259)-for details of action taken in relation to flexible working hours in the Public Service see Public Service Board Annual Reports 1976, pages 68-69; 1977, pages 60-61; 1979, page 14.

Guidelines for statutory authorities on industrial matters (Recommendation 257)- this recommendation is being considered in relation to recommendations 32-35, 37-38, 43-44 and 274-5 on statutory authorities.

Structure and role of registered unions (Recommendation 258)- this recommendation is still under consideration. The

National Labour Consultative Council has been asked for its views on certain aspects of it.

Commonwealth employment arrangements (Recommendations 213-17, 221, 333 ) - still under consideration. Some action has been taken in this area, for example, the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979 when proclaimed could be applied to areas of Commonwealth employment not at present covered by the Public Service Act. Uniform conditions for most Commonwealth staff exist in superannuation, long service leave, compensation and maternity leave. The Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1977 applies to all areas of Commonwealth employment. It has been decided that there should be no change to current arrangements in relation to responsibility for superannuation and compensation.

Joint Council (Recommendations 260-262 )-these recommendations have been examined by the Government, the Public Service Board and the Joint Council. They will be considered again infurtherworkonrecommendations 213-217, 221 and 333 relating to co-ordination in employment arrangements.

Efficiency, organisation and related matters

Forward Estimates (Recommendations 2, 87, 310, 311 (b))-the Government’s response to these recommendations is contained in the statement made by the Minister for Finance to the House of Representatives on 4 March 1980 in response to a Report from the House Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled ‘Parliament and Public Expenditure’. The Minister stated that the Government saw no advantage in adopting the specific measures proposed by the Royal Commission. He noted that these recommendations generally recommend upgrading of the forward estimates system. This is reflected in the system now operating which integrates the forward estimates into the Budget process, provides for Ministerial involvement and gives a framework within which expenditure priorities can be assessed and control measures can be pursued in an orderly fashion. The Minister stated, however, that the Government does not consider it appropriate or practical to convert the present forward estimates into a comprehensive expenditure planning mechanism or, given the uncertainties involved, that it would be helpful to provide detailed published projections for years ahead.

Permanent heads- role and relationships (Recommendations 3, 9, 14, 16, 47-48, 53, 55)-for details of action taken see Public Service Board AnnualReport 1978, page 30, Recommendations 47 and 48 were not accepted by the Government, but amendments to the Audit Act (section 2ab (i)) clarified the role of a permanent head in relation to the financial management of his department. The Government has not accepted recommendations 53 and 55.

Efficiency auditing (Recommendations 4-8, 39-40, 96 (b) (c), 3 12-3 18)- the Audit Amendment Act 1979 provides that the Auditor-General shall undertake efficiency audits and report to the Parliament on these.

Common services agencies (Recommendation 22)-the possibility of establishing a trial common service unit in Adelaide was examined by the Public Service Board and the Department of Administrative Services. As a result of this study the Board has decided not to proceed with a full scale unit at this stage, butfurther consideration is being given to establishing a common unit for personnel services.Further details are provided in the Board’ s1979 Annual Report, pp. 15-16. The Department of Finance has reviewed policy relating to interdepartmental charges and the Government has laid down criteria to be followed. Details were provided to all permanent heads on 4 August 1 978.

Research bureaux (Recommendation 29)-the Public Service Board takes this recommendation into account in considering departmental proposals for setting up research establishments.

Delegation (Recommendations 95, 96 (d) (e))permanent heads have been asked to examine current practices, in consultation with the Department of Finance and the Public Service Board, relating to delegations and monetary limits and to review delegations at appropriate intervals.

Aspects of the Board’s management consultancy role (Recommendation 96 (a))-the Board examines delegations in the course of its conduct of joint management and staff utilization reviews.

Management service units (Recommendations 241- 242)- the Public Service Board has conducted a number of joint management reviews with departments into aspects of management services work and has taken those recommendations into account in the reviews. The areas covered have been management advisory skills, internal audit and accounts processing. Some details of these reviews are given at pages 1 1-13 of the 1979 Report of the Public Service Board.

Management consultancy unit (Recommendation 327)- a management consultancy pool was established in the Public Service Board’s Office in 1978. This unit includes a Level 3, Second Division position, three Level 1 positions as well as other senior Third Division positions. Staff from policy and management services areas of departments are seconded to the pool from time to time and private management consultants are engaged on a full-time or part-time basis to help with the services provided by the pool. Consultant services are not usually provided to organisations outside the Public Service proper although the Board has given assistance to some Commonwealth government organisations not staffed under the Public Service Act.

Registries (Recommendation 301)- in July 1979 a study was undertaken to determine the feasibility of a major review. An inter-departmental working group was established and fact finding was carried out in eight departments. A pilot study was undertaken in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and recommendations are being considered for implementation. Another pilot study is being conducted in the Curriculum Development Centre and further studies are under consideration.

Automatic data processing, (Recommendation 302)- the Public Service Board’s role in relation to ADP essentially encompasses the functions identified as appropriate in this recommendation. The Board ‘s role is being examined in the context of the Public Accounts Committee’s 174th and 175th Reports, the Government responses to which are still under consideration.

Establishment, classification and other functions of the Public Service Board (Recommendations 202, 325-326, 334) - still under consideration as priorities, permit; the implementation of many of the Commission’s recommendations have, of course, affected the role cif the Board.

Information matters

Departmental annual reports (Recommendations 23-25, 58)- the Government has decided that all departments should produce annual reports and has approved guidelines to assist departments.

Accessibility to groups and guidelines for community contact (Recommendations 91, 92, 93)- Ministers have been asked to review regularly the adequacy of their procedures in relation to recommendations 91 and 92. In light of this, the Board has not taken any action on recommendation 93.

Exchange of information with Foreign Affairs (Recommendation 287)- Ministers have been asked to review regularly the adequacy of their procedures in this area.

Regional electronic information system (Recommendation 12-13- the Public Service Board considers that while the establishment of an electronic system of the kind suggested by the Royal Commission is now theoretically feasible, substantial doubts arise with regard to its costs and benefits at this stage of technological development. Apart from substantial technical problems, there are a number of significant administrative problems that would require resolution before such a system could be contemplated; for example, the establishment of department priorities and privacy of personal information. Further, limitations on the availability of resources (both finance and staff) currently result in substantial difficulties in developing computer systems of a much more restricted and less complex nature. Even a pilot study of the type suggested by the Royal Commission is not considered feasible at this time.

Departmental information procedures (Recommendation 68)- the Freedom of Information Bill will place upon departments and authorities a statutory obligation to publish statements and manuals relating to their functions and the categories of documents they hold. In addition, agencies will be required to respond to requests for information within a statutory time limit and disclose documents. It is up to each agency to develop administrative procedures to meet these obligations. The legislation covering the unauthorised disclosure of information is currently being examined and this will include a review of regulation 35 under the Public Service Act.

Review of information programs and services (Recommendations 304, 305, 307-309)- the Government has established a Task Force on Departmental Information to undertake a review of departmental information programs and examine the public dissemination within Australia of information on Government programs and activities. During the course of its review the Task Force has made suggestions to Ministers concerning improvements to the flow of information to the community and will be making recommendations generally on many of the subject areas of recommendation 307. In accordance with its terms of reference, the Task Force is giving consideration to ‘the need’ for central professional advice and monitoring’ in respect of departmental information activities. The Task Force will be providing its final report to the Government shortly.

Machinery of Government and related matters

Sectoral grouping of departments (Recommendation 26)-further action to be left to departments and the Public Service Board as appropriate.

Ombudsman (Recommendation 78)-the Ombudsman Act 1976 received assent on 13 December 1976; the Ombudsman was appointed on 17 March 1977.

Australian Science and Technology Council (Recommendation 277)- legislation to establish the Council as a statutory authority was assented to on 22 June 1 978.

Council of Government Science Establishments (Recommendations 278, 282)- these recommendations were not implemented. However, action was taken to review the structure and functions of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the Bureau of Mineral Resources.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Recommendations 280, 281)- the Prime Minister announced on 11 May 1978 (House of Representatives Hansard, page 2244) that CSIRO will remain a single multidisciplinary research entity responsible to the Minister for

Science, but that much of the day to day management formerly undertaken by the executive would be devolved to directors of new functional groupings of divisions to be called institutes.

Science liaison officers (Recommendation 283)- this recommendation has not been implemented.

Reports by government science establishments (Recommendation 284)- a number of government science establishments publish reports. The Government is presently examining the reporting requirements of statutory and other authorities.

Autonomy of the Bureau of Meteorology and the Analytical Laboratories (Recommendation 279)- the Bureau and the Laboratories are continuing as part of the Department of Science and the Environment.

Advisory Council to the Statistician (Recommendation 303)- the Australian Statistics Advisory Council was established in 1976. Membership includes representatives nominated by State Premiers and Commonwealth government bodies, and representatives of business, the universities, and other interests including the ACTU. For details of membership see the Council ‘s Annual Report for 1 978-79.

Social Welfare Department (Recommendations 285, 300)- the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat was established in the Department of Social Security in 1 977. The Secretariat advises the Permanent Head Committee on Social Welfare Policy on policies and programs, provides support to the Social Welfare Policy Committee of Cabinet and ensures the co-ordinated development and review of health and welfare policy.

Minister Assisting the Prime Minister (Recommendation 324)- the Prime Minister has appointed Ministers to assist him.

Role of the Departments of the Treasury and Finance (Recommendations 10 and 311)- the Government has, through the creation of the Department of Finance, separated the previous financial management and control functions of the Department of the Treasury from its role in broad economic policy, and has made other arrangements announced at the time of that separation. In relation to certain of the more specific matters dealt with by recommendation 3 1 1 , the Audit Act has been amended to provide clear authority for delegation of certain powers formerly those of the Secretary to the Treasury, but the Government has not accepted the view that the Australian Bureau of Statistics should be responsible to a Minister other than the Treasurer.

Department of Industries and the Economy (Recommendations 264-265)- not accepted.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (Recommendations 270, 272-273)- 270, 272: no action has been taken in respect of these recommendations. 273: it has been decided that this recommendation will not be implemented.

Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Structure (Recommendations 319, 320)- the Department’s need for flexibility in meeting administrative needs from time to time has been reflected in a variety of formal structures. The recommendations of the Royal Commission are but one option for departmental operations. At this particular time, management requirements, as determined by the permanent head in consultation with the Public Service Board, call for a structure different from that suggested in the recommendations.

Interdepartmental Committees (Recommendations 321, 322)- some of the procedures outlined in these recommendations are current practice. No further action is at present contemplated.

Machinery of Government (Recommendations 323, 328)- procedures outlined in these recommendations are, in general, current practice.

Women’s Affairs Branch (Recommendation 298)- this Branch was transferred from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Department of Home Affairs and staff levels increased.

Ministerial and Parliamentary Matters

Ministers not to be insulated from management problems (Recommendation 18)- Ministers agree with this recommendation.

Ministerial and related staff (Recommendations 56, 57, 219-220)- it has been decided to consider these recommendations in the context of related recommendations 213-217, 221 and 333 which concern Commonwealth employment arrangements.

Fixed time for Parliamentary Divisions (Recommendation 17)- no decision has been taken to date.

Public Accounts Committee- response direct (Recommendation 59)- no change is proposed as a general rule to the Department of Finance minute system which was evolved to meet specific requirements of the Public Accounts Committee and has been continued with the agreement of successive Committees.

Public Accounts Committee- salaries (Recommendation 60)- since 1976 the Remuneration Tribunal has determined a special rate of additional salary and a special allowance for the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

Witnesses before Parliamentary committees (Recommendations 61-66)- proposed guidelines for official witnesses were tabled by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters on 28 September 1978 (House of Representatives Hansard, pages 1 506-8 ).

Access by members of Parliament to officials and briefing by officials of party committees (Recommendations 67, 70- 7 1 )- guidelines were tabled by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters on 19 September 1978 (House of Representatives Hansard, pages 1 1 10-1 1).

Information for new Members of Parliament (Recommendation 69)- this matter has been drawn to the attention of the Presiding Officers.

Pre-election consultation with the Opposition (Recommendation 72 )- guidelines to regulate pre-election consultation between the Leader of the Opposition and the Chairman of the Public Service Board and the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and between shadow ministers and heads of departments were approved by the Government in 1976. The guidelines were tabled on 9 December 1976 (House of Representatives Hansard, page 3591).

Grievance staff for MPs (Recommendation 77)- the Remuneration Tribunal determines the number of staff for members; the allocation of duties to these staff is a matter for members.

Parliamentary Library Research (Recommendation 306)- the Parliamentary Librarian has taken action to implement this recommendation.

Matters Affecting Statutory and Non-departmental Bodies

Task forces with political input (Recommendation 28)- no particular action required.

Appointment and servicing of non-statutory bodies (Recommendation 30)- departments generally keep these matters under review; further action to be taken by Ministers and the Public Service Board as appropriate.

Meetings of statutory bodies (Recommendation 31)- the Public Service Board has not convened any meetings of groups of statutory authorities in advance of further consideration of the Royal Commission ‘s recommendations for a wider role for the Board in relation to Commonwealth employment generally.

Statutory Authorities (Recommendations 32-35, 37-38, 43-44, 274-5)- the Government has endorsed the conclusion that the departmental form of organisation for government agencies is to be favoured unless a clear necessity can be demonstrated for the functions concerned to be carried out by a body which is wholly, or in some desired way, separate from ministerial and departmental administration. The issues relating to the creation and operation of statutory authorities raised by the recommendations of the Royal Commission and by later reports, including those of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on ‘Statutory authorities of the Commonwealth ‘, are under consideration.

Meetings between departments and statutory bodies (Recommendation 36)- this is a matter for individual Ministers.

Evaluation of staff representation on commissions ( Recommendation 42)- no action taken at this stage.

Statutory officers- compensation when office abolished (Recommendations 45-46)- no action is being taken on these recommendations pending the finalisation of detailed arrangements to apply in redeployment and retirement in the Public Service.

Advisory groups (Recommendations 86, 88, 89)- Ministers generally support these recommendations and detailed action has been left to each Minister.

Foreign Affairs and Other Overseas Matters

Integration of Foreign Affairs Officers (Recommendations 223 and 225-227)- a scheme was introduced in 1977 to facilitate secondments between the Departments of Foreign Affairs and other areas of the Public Service. Staff of the Department have participated in staff exchange arrangements between the Public Service Board and other employers and in the Executive Development Scheme organised by the Public Service Board. Officers can move from one stream to another within the Department, and between the Department and other areas of the Public Service.

Repeal of Trade Commissioners Act (Recommendation 224)- recommendation not accepted.

Overseas Service Advisory Council (Recommendation 228)- the Public Service Board has decided not to take up this recommendation as it regards existing arrangements for consultation as adequate.

Overseas allowances (Recommendation 229)- the Public Service Board is currently examining the system of overseas allowances.

Locally engaged staff at overseas posts (Recommendations 230-232)- a system has been introduced which provides for the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Resources to control the employment of locally engaged staff, within certain limits approved by the Public Service Board. These limits include the designation and classification to be used and the maximum number of persons to be employed. At the majority of overseas posts the Head of Mission is now authorised to adjust the salaries of locally engaged staff between inspections by the Board to take account of movements in local pay markets.

New posts- criteria for establishment (Recommendations 233-234)-the Public Service Board is to report biennially to the Government on the whole field of overseas representation. Ministers will continue to determine when functions need to be performed overseas.

Post liaison visits (Recommendation 235)- the Government has decided that post liaison visits are to be given a higher priority: each post is to be visited at least every three years, larger posts every two years.

Inspections of overseas posts (Recommendation 236)- wherever practicable inspections of overseas posts are undertaken on a joint Public Service Board/departmental basis. Where joint inspections occur joint reports are prepared. In relation to the assessment of management practice at overseas posts, Public Service Board inspectors are progressively increasing their audit of delegated authority as responsibility for more management decisions are devolved to departments and Heads of Missions. So far as determinations by inspectors are concerned, matters requiring early decision can be taken before the inspectors return to Australia. In taking decisions as a result of inspections, the Board prefers to take into account the views of the affected departments as well as the posts.

Action taken on Report on Overseas Service (Recommendation 237)- the Royal Commission generally endorsed the Report on Overseas Service, and recommended that the Report’s proposals not dealt with specifically by other recommendations of the Commission be implemented. Action taken on the Overseas Service Report not covered elsewhere in this answer has been as follows:

  1. Responsibility of Head of Mission (Recommendation 8)- arrangements envisaged in 8 (i) apply. No specific action required on recommendation 8 (ii).
  2. Establishment matters (Recommendations 9- 14) - recommendations 9, 10 (i), 11,12 and 13 have been implemented. Recommendations 10 (iii) and (iv) are still under consideration. Recommendation 10 (ii) has not been accepted.
  3. Conditions of service for Australia based staff (Recommendation 22)- the Public Service Board is transferring authority for the management of funds relating to these matters to departments, within general guidelines.
  4. Determination of rent ceilings (Recommendation 30)- under consideration.
  5. Powers of Heads of Mission in determining maximum rents (Recommendation 31)- wherever possible Heads of Mission are given responsibility to increase rent ceilings within specified limits. In most posts the costs of utilities are met as a government charge.
  6. General financial matters (Recommendation 32)- reviews have been completed of overseas accounting directions and of all forms used. Consideration is now being given to a joint management review of overseas accounting operations.

Briefing of officers (Recommendation 286)- no change to existing arrangements is necessary.

Task force on policy issues (Recommendation 288)- no change to existing arrangements is necessary.

Other Matters

Collective decision making (Recommendations 19, 263) - specific action to be left to departments and Ministers.

Qualifications of the Director-General of Health (Recommendation 50)- the existing qualification requirements for the Director-General of Health will be retained.

Decision-making at the point of contact (Recommendation 73)- action to be left to departments and Ministers.

Public contact staff (Recommendation 74)- measures have been taken to improve counter services following an interdepartmental committee report on the matter. For details see Public Service Board Annual Reports 1977 page 82, 1 978 page 69 and 1 979 pages 46-47.

Advisory boards (Recommendation 75)- action has been taken by Ministers to improve delivery of services at point of contact.

Review of correspondence procedures (Recommendation 76)- permanent heads have been asked to review procedures regularly.

Administrative appeals (Recommendations 79-82)- 79: this recommendation is still under consideration. The Administrative Review Council is empowered among other things to ascertain, and keep under review, the classes of administrative decisions that are not the subject of review by a court, tribunal or other body; and to make recommendations to the Attorney-General as to whether any of those classes of decisions should be the subject of review and, if so, what is the appropriate body to make that review. 80: this recommendation has been implemented in part. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 was amended in 1977 to provide for senior non-presidential members who might sit either alone or as chairman of panels of the Tribunal. The Act does not require that a senior non-presidential member should have legal qualifications, although all such members appointed to date do in fact have legal qualifications. The question of the qualifications for members of the Tribunal is a matter to be considered in a review of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. 8 1 : the enactment of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review ) Act1977 provides simplified procedures for originating applications for judicial review and vests review jurisdiction in the Federal Court of Australia. A Bill to amend that Act with a view to the Act being proclaimed as soon as possible was introduced by the Attorney-General into the Senate on 22 May 1980. Recommendation 81 will be fully implemented when the Act is brought into operation. 82: this matter is still under consideration.

Role of voluntary agencies (Recommendations 83-85)- 83: the procedures outlined in this recommendation are in accordance with the Government’s approach to the use of voluntary agencies. 84: details of grants to voluntary agencies are generally made public. Appropriate safeguards in regard to the use of public money are imposed by granting departments or through the appropriate state agencies. 85: discussions have been held with the States and where appropriate agreed forms of program administration will be implemented in respect of new programs.

Grants to organisations making submissions (Recommendation 90)- recommendation not accepted.

Tropical housing standards (Recommendation 98)-the Interdepartmental Committee on Housing Scales and Standards has been asked to take account of this recommendation.

Regional administration (Recommendations 99-106)- the Government has decided not to proceed with the implementation of these recommendations. The Public Service Board is however continuing to pursue aspects of the proposals that do not involve additional staff or funds.

Use of State and Local Governments (Recommendations 107,110, 111 and 1 13)- these recommendations should be looked at in the light of the Commonwealth Government’s Federalism policy, the main thrust of which is the returning to State governments of those matters traditionally their responsibility. This has been exemplified by reducing the significance of specific purpose funding and ensuring that the States have reasonable access to untied funds via the tax sharing arrangements. This has meant a cut back in duplicated effort. At the same time States are required to conform to the principles set out in recommendation 111(b) and (c). It is the responsibility of the administrating Commonwealth department to ensure that Commonwealth programs administered by State departments are carried out within the agreed arrangements for that program. The role of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, in this regard, is to look at the broader implications of actions within the context of the Federalism policy. With regard to local government, there are some programs that the Commonwealth Funds directly. However, the Commonwealth recognises local government as, constitutionally, the responsibility of State governments.

Use of State officers (Recommendations 108-109, 112)- the Board has consulted permanent heads on these recommendations. They are now to be considered in conjunction with any further examination of the Royal Commission ‘s views on the co-ordination of Commonwealth employment arrangements (recommendations 213-217, 221, 333).

One stop shops (Recommendations 115-116 and 292)- officers of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Victorian Premier’s Department and independent consultants have completed a final evaluation of the Centre. On the basis of the conclusions in that evaluation the NOW Centre will continue as a co-ordinated welfare delivery outlet. Future administrative arrangements for the Centre are being finalised between the Commonwealth Department of Social Security and the Victorian Department of Community Welfare Services. The final evaluation found that the NOW Centre services differed from those at other offices in only a few respects and were not significantly different in terms of cost. The question of the establishment of further one stop welfare centres will be considered in the light of particular circumstances as they arise. In relation to recommendation 292, the one stop shop was tried for a period in the major government administrative building in Alice Springs. Following self-government for the Northern Territory on1 July 1978 the use of the building was reallocated and the experiment discontinued. In practice, it was found that the departments providing services to Aboriginals had such different accommodation needs and management systems that the one stop shop concept was impractical.

Grievance case (Recommendation 181)- the Public Service Board established an independent enquiry to review this case. The results of the review were indicated in the House of Representatives by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters on 8 June 1 978 ( House of Representatives Hansard p. 3255).

Remuneration Tribunal- amendment to Act ( Recommendation 255)- this recommendation is to be taken into account in any review of the Remuneration Tribunal Act.

Briefing of economists in other departments (Recommendation 266-267)- briefing is already undertaken; the disclosure of economic forecasts is not acceptable.

Direct access by Governor of Reserve Bank ( Recommendations 268-269)- recommendations describe existing situation.

Economic Council ( Recommendation 27 1 )- an Economic Panel and an Economic Consultative Group have been established. Their functions are set out in the Commonwealth Government Directory,1979 at p. 301. No further action is to be taken.

Green/white papers on economic issues (Recommendation 276)-the Government has decided no action will be taken.

Staff ceilings ( Recommendations 200. 20 1 )- for details of current arrangements see Public Service Board Annual Report 1979, pages 3-4.

Aboriginal advisors’ and consultative bodies ( Recommendations 289-291, 293)- following on from the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Role of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (the Hiatt Committee), the government has established and funds two inter-related bodies: the National Aboriginal Conference and the Council for Aboriginal Development. The structure and functions of these bodies were set out in a statement made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on 30 May 1977 (House of Representatives Hansard pages 2 104-2 111). In addition, various co-ordinating mechanisms have been developed over a period of time to advise on priorities and programs at a State and local level.

Aboriginal affairs ( Recommendations 294-297)- 294: the Royal Commission confirmed the Government’s existing philosophy of self-management which is central to Government policy. This policy recognises the need to ensure that administrative burdens are not placed on Aboriginal communities prematurely.295: studies of the kind envisaged have been undertaken both within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and through special consultancy work and studies performed by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies and others. 296: the question of measurable indicators of welfare was given a great deal of attention in the Hay Report. As a result, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, with assistance from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, has developed a system enabling the collection of statistical data about individual communities. Indicators are being derived from this data so that comparisons can be made between communities. 297: the Hay Report reviewed services financed by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Following on from this, processes for the continuing review of governmental programs in aboriginal affairs were strengthened. In addition it is to be expected that program effectiveness reviews would look from time to time at various aspects of particular programs in aboriginal affairs.

Public Service Board ‘s Annual Report (Recommendation 332)- in recent years the Board has removed much of the detailed statistical content from its Annual Report and consolidated these statistics with other statistical information into a Statistical Yearbook.

Review of Defence administration (Recommendation 335 ) - under consideration.

Review of Royal Commission Act (Recommendation 336) - under consideration.

Handling of the Report (Recommendation 337)- for details of arrangements for considering the Commission ‘s Report see Public Service Board Annual Report 1977, pages17-19.

Uranium: Westinghouse Anti-trust Case (Question No. 2309)

Senator Evans:

asked the Attorney-General the following question on notice:

  1. ) Has the Australian Government, prior to the AttorneyGeneral’s Press release No. 78-79 of 21 October 1979, made public the fact that it delivered the Aide Memoire referred to in paragraph 7 of the Amicus Curiae Memorandum of the Government of Australia which is annexed to that press release.
  2. Will the contents of that Aide Memoire be made public.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. Yes, action is in hand to have the Aide Memoire made public as soon as possible.

Autonomy of Academic Institutions (Question No. 2345)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 23 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Are there any unofficial or official policies in overseas countries giving employment preferences to permanent residents for jobs in academic institutions; if so, what are those policies and, in particular, is there an official policy in Canada and the United States and an unofficial policy in the United Kingdom.
  2. ) Is the principle of automony of academic institutions in hiring staff in Australia identical to their autonomy in study leave; if not: (a) what are the differences; and (b) on what basis does it rest.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. ) It needs to be recognised that any official controls relating to the appointment of non-residents to staff positions in overseas countries are the policy responsibilities of governments, not institutions.

Although I have no detailed information on the position in the United States, I understand that there are few if any effective restrictions which govern the appointment of nonresidents. In practice, it appears that academic appointments in certain disciplines may be difficult to negotiate.

In relation to the United Kingdom, the honourable senator will be aware of that Government’s general entry policies, which would apply equally to the appointments of non-residents to academic posts.

The situation in Canada is that since 1 976, the entrance of non-Canadian faculty members has been regulated by the federal Department of Employment and Immigration. A non-Canadian can be admitted to Canada only if a verified appointment offer is held, and the institution concerned is able to show that reasonable effort has been made to find a qualified Canadian or current landed immigrant to fill the position. I understand that under these conditions nonresidents have very limited opportunities.

  1. Universities and colleges of advanced education in Australia are managed by governing bodies established under Acts of Parliament. The hiring of staff and the administration of study leave, now known as outside studies programs in universities and professional experience programs in colleges of advanced education come within the management powers of institutions. The Government expects that universities and colleges of advanced education, in administering these programs, will conform with guidelines provided by the Tertiary Education Commission.

Committees of Inquiry: Staff (Question No. 2346)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 November1979:

  1. ) What were, or are, the job statements for the secretary or chief executive officer, and consultants, where appropriate, of each of the following inquiries: (a) the Birch Committee on the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization; (b) the Myer Committee of Inquiry on

Technological Change; (c) the Williams Inquiry on Education and Training; (d) the Dix Inquiry on the Australian Broadcasting Commission; (e) the Ethnic Television Review Panel; and (f) the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration (the Coombs Inquiry).

  1. What is, or was, the salary, and level in the Public Service, where applicable of the secretary, chief executive officer or consultants, where appropriate, to each of the inquiries.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Detailed information has been ascertained from departments servicing the various inquiries in relation to secretaries or chief executive officers of the inquiries. The information includes an indication of the nature of the duties concerned but does not necessarily reflect formal ‘job statements’. In the case of such appointments, salary levels appropriate to the task are determined by the Public Service Board and take account of a range of factors including, for example, the extent to which members of the Committee of Inquiry are themselves allocating time to the task, the scope of the research task, and the extent to which consultants are being used or the work is having to be done in-house. Where employment has been at Public Service standard classifications, salaries have not been included as these vary from time to time and the rate applicable at any time in respect of the level stated is readily ascertainable.

Consultancy arrangements take the form of contracts with firms or individuals and fees and expenses paid are not in the nature of salaries to individuals, nor do consultants have job statements as such. Also, there were numerous consultancy arrangements entered into in relation to the various inquiries. Thus, information has been provided on the total cost of consultancy arrangements for each inquiry. If the honourable senator wishes more detailed information in relation to any particular consultancy arrangements, I should be happy to see what can be provided.

  1. The Committee of Inquiry into the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Executive Secretary, Level 1, Second Division. Act as Executive Secretary to the Committee. The cost of consultants to the Committee was $ 1 3,649.
  2. The Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia, Secretary, Level 1, Second Division. Act as Secretary to the Committee. The estimated cost of consultants to the Committee to March 1980 is $2 17,000.
  3. The Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training, Secretary, Level 1, Second Division.
  4. Under the broad direction of the Committee, provide policy guidance and leadership to a specialist task group with the responsibility of:
  5. formulating and developing major policy alternatives for the Committee;
  6. collecting and synthesising information of relevance to the Committee ‘s deliberations;
  7. providing support to the Committee in specialist areas of interest.

    1. Establish effective liaison with a range of relevant contacts interdepartmentally, with State Government bodies, universities and other relevant organisations.
    2. Guide, supervise and direct the Committee Secretariat.

The cost of consultants to the Committee was $33,383.

  1. The Australian Broadcasting Commission Committee of Review, Secretary, Level 3, Second Division.

    1. Direct the Secretariat and handle matters of correspondence for the Committee; provide administrative support service to the Committee.
    2. Keep minutes of Committee meetings and manage the Committee’s business. Supervise arrangements for Committee visits, hearings and discussions.
    3. Co-ordinate research activities for the Committee. Co-ordinate and direct the examination and analysis of submissions and the preparation of reports thereon.
    4. Provide information and advice to the Committee on matters of public administration relevant to the Committee ‘s inquiries.
    5. Co-ordinate inputs to the Committee’s Report from submissions, hearings, research and the work of consultants. Assist in drafting the Committee’s Report.
    6. Maintain liaison with AGPS in the final printing and, as necessary, publishing of the Committee’s Report.

The estimated cost of consultants to the Committee to April 1980 is $3,300.

  1. The Ethnic Television Review Panel, Secretary, $34,839 (temporary employment salary).

    1. Act as Secretary to the Panel and head the Secretariat.
    2. Supervise administrative arrangements for the Panel ‘s work (e.g. funds, staff, etc).
    3. Advise the Panel on its Terms of Reference and procedural matters.
    4. Assist the Panel in drafting Reports.

There were no consultants engaged by the Panel. (0 The Royal Commission on Australian Government

Administration, Secretary, Level 3, Second Division. Act as Secretary to the Royal Commission. The cost of consultants to the Royal Commission was $430,530.

Overseas Teachers in Australia (Question No. 2348)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many teachers were admitted to Australia on a temporary basis in each year from 1 972-73 to 1 978-79.
  2. How many of these teachers were granted permanent residence in Australia.
  3. How many overseas teachers living in Australia on a temporary basis are now employed in each State and Territory.
  4. How many overseas teachers living in Australia on a temporary basis are holding positions which could be filled by Australian teachers.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. (a) Statistics are unavailable on the number of teachers admitted to Australia on a temporary basis for the year 1972-73.

    1. Teachers (excluding lecturers for tertiary institutions) admitted on a temporary basis in each year from 1973-74 to 1978-79 were:

These teachers were admitted on sponsorship after consultation with other Government departments. Some were approved for entry under exchange program provisions, others to satisfy a demand which could not be met by suitably trained teachers in Australia.

  1. Statistics are unavailable on the number of teachers admitted to Australia on a temporary basis who were granted permanent residence in Australia between 1972 and 1975.

Between July 1975 and June 1979, 798 teachers (excluding lecturers for tertiary institutions) admitted on a temporary basis were granted permanent residence. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has no record of how many of these were admitted prior to 1972. Change of status was granted upon application to those teachers who could satisfy the normal migration requirements then in operation.

  1. and (4) The Commonwealth Teaching Service, with responsibilities for both the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, does not hold information which would enable these questions to be answered.

It is not known whether it is the practice of teacher employing authorities in the States to keep records of this kind.

The honourable senator may wish to arrange for an approach to be made to State Education Authorities to ascertain whether the information sought can be provided from those sources.

New International Aerodrome in Brisbane: Operational Costs (Question No. 2350)

Senator Rocher:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Will the capital cost of upgraded facilities to be provided at the new international aerodrome in Brisbane be recoverable in whole or in part from fares to be paid by air travellers on domestic routes.
  2. Will increased operational costs of the upgraded facilities add to the price of domestic air travel.
  3. What is the estimated loading on to domestic air fares as a result of (a) the capital cost to be incurred; and (b) increased operating costs.
  4. Will any increase in domestic fares arising out of increased capital or operating costs be confined to travellers using the new facilities in Brisbane.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (4) The cost recovery aspects of the redevelopment of Brisbane Airport have yet to be considered by the Government. It is not possible at this stage therefore to indicate what will be the effect of this redevelopment on the operating costs of the airlines. The impact on air fares will be a matter for the commercial judgment of the airlines.

Statutory Authorities: Employees (Question No. 2355)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 9 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) How many people are employed in each statutory authority within the Ministerial authority of each Minister.
  2. How many people in each authority are employed: (a) under the terms of the Public Service Act 1922: and (b) under other terms and conditions.
  3. How many employees of each authority who are employed under each of (2) (a) and (2) (b) are permanent employees.
  4. How many permanent employees in each category are not British subjects.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

To provide all the detailed information requested by the honourable senator in relation to statutory authorities would involve checking with each authority. Even so, for reasons indicated below, it would be impossible to provide meaningful and complete information in the terms sought. In the circumstances, 1 would be reluctant to authorise the use of the resources that would be necessary to draw together such detailed information as is available. A significant amount of the information which could be obtained by a detailed check is, however, already published in a convenient form and I draw the honourable senator’s attention to the relevant sources below. If there is some further specific information which the honourable senator would find of particular interest, I would be happy to see if it could be provided.

1 ) and (2) Parts I and II of Table 9 of the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication Civilian Employees, Australia (Catalogue No. 6213.0) provide, in the March, June, September and December issues, details of employment under the Public Service Act and under other Acts, respectively. Separate statistics are published only for the larger authorities, but these employ by far the greater number of staff.

The number of permanent Public Service Act employees as at June 1 979 is shown at Table 3 of the Public Service Board Statistical Yearbook 1 979. Statistics showing the number of permanent other Act employees for authorities are not readily available and, in any case, not all authorities distinguish between permanent and temporary employees. I am advised, however, that the two largest statutory authorities, the Australian Telecommunications Commission and the Australian Postal Commission, together employed in 1978-79 in the order of 89,000 permanent staff, and 30,000 temporary staff.

Statutory authorities do not follow a consistent practice in relation to nationality requirements. For example, such large authorities as the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission, which have the majority of other Act staff, have no nationality requirement. In these cases, it is not the practice to maintain statistics of employees who are not British subjects.

Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation: Broadcast Frequencies (Question No. 2396)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Is it intended that the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation will broadcast: (a) only on UHF; (b) initially on Channel 0 on VHF; or (c) on both frequencies.
  2. Has a technical evaluation been made of the quality of the signals of Channel 0 in Sydney and Melbourne; if so, were the signals considered satisfactory.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. (a)and(b)No.

    1. Transmission on UHF is to proceed with the target date of October 1980 for commencement. Initially, there will be an interim VHF service on channel 0 simulcasting the same programs as transmitted on UHF. After some time transmission on channel 0 will cease and the service will continue solely on UHF.
  2. In Melbourne, Channel 0 has been operating for many years. A specific evaluation has not been considered necessary for Sydney.

Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation: Appointment of Ethnic Advisory Committee (Question No. 2398)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

Will the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation appoint an Ethnic Advisory Committee to which the IMBC will refer its policies, plans and program schedules, in the same way as the Australian Broadcasting Commission has advisory committees; if so, how many ethnic communities will be represented on the Council.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The Second Report of the Ethnic Television Review Panel, accepted by the Government, recommended that there be established State Consultative Committees in the States and Territories receiving the Corporation’s services to advise the Board of the Corporation. Specifically that:

the Board of the Corporation invites nominations of individuals every two years;

the Board selects every two years from the nominees at least twelve (12) and no more than eighteen (18) members from each State Consultative Committee and selects from each Committee a member to be Chairman of the Committee;

committees comprise a broad cross-section of the community, meeting as individuals and not as representatives of organisations;

committee members are not re-appointed for consecutive two-year terms. This should not preclude reappointment at a later date;

committees be established in various States and Territories as services are introduced in those States; and

Members, the General Manager, staff or contractors of the Corporation and their dependents be ineligible for membership of State Consultative Committees.

The mandate of the National Consultative Committee will embrace all aspects of multicultural broadcasting. The State Consultative Committees will advise on matters relative to programming in each State.

Defence Force Academy (Question No. 2417)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 1 February1980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister seen statements by the Western Australian Minister for Education, that the Federal Government’s decision to set up a $65. 2m National Defence Force Academy is a wasteful extravagance.
  2. Will the Government release the costings of the proposed Academy.
  3. Will the Government arrange for discussions between the Government and the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee about the Academy.
  4. Has the Minister seen a report in the Financial Review, 20 December 1979, which quotes a ‘confidential estimate prepared in the Department of Defence’ as stating that the Australian Defence Force Academy will cost $79.9m.
  5. ) Is the correct figure $65.2m or $79.9m.
  6. Is the $65. 2m an estimate based on February 1978 prices; if so, what will be the cost in February 1 980 figures.
  7. 7 ) What is to be the location of the Academy.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. The cost of constructing the proposed Academy was announced by the Minister for Construction in the House of Representatives on 16 March 1978.
  3. The views of the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee are known.
  4. Yes.
  5. and (6) See answer to (2) above.
  6. Canberra.

Social Security Benefits (Question No. 2436)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) What is the average waiting time in each State and Territory between application for and receipt of first payment of: (a) unemployment benefit; (b) sickness benefit; (c) special benefit; and (d) any other pensions or benefits for which this information is available.
  2. If this information is not currently available does the Government intend to collect this data on a regular basis.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The average waiting time in each State and

Territory between application for and receipt of first payment of various benefits and pensions administered by my Department is set out in the table below. It should bc noted that during these waiting periods for the grant of a pension or benefit, the client is often in receipt of, and continues to receive, some other form of benefit until grant is made.

On 25 May, 1978 in reply to a similar quesion (Hansard, 25 May 1978, page 1918)1 informed you that it was difficult to state an average waiting time for Unemployment Benefit cases and I mentioned some of the factors on which the first payment was dependent. The difficulties still apply and the figures quoted above reflect the average number of days elapsed by which 50 percent of the new unemployment benefit claims are paid.

The average waiting time for payment of special benefit has not been shown in the above table because the waiting time varies considerably, for example, the straight forward hardship case is paid immediately whilst a maintenance guarantee case may take several weeks.

The time taken to process invalid pension claims is to some extent outside the control of the Department as it is necessary to arrange appointments with Commonwealth Medical Officers and sometimes specialists and await their reports.

Vietnam: Australian Servicemen (Question No. 2462)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 4 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) What are the names and last-known addresses of all Australian servicemen who have returned from Vietnam.
  2. To which service units were these men attached in Vietnam.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Some 50,000 Australians served in Vietnam. A very large administrative task would be involved in amassing and presenting the information requested in the question. I have authorised some similar work in the context of the epidemiological study recently announced by my colleague, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, but naturally I shall not authorise the publication of any list of names and addresses of private individuals that may need to be compiled.
  2. More than 150 ‘units’ served in Vietnam. A brief description of the main units is as follows:

Navy-HMA Ships Brisbane, Hobart, Perth, Vampire.

Army- All nine battalions of the Royal Australian Regiment, various elements of 3 Cavalry Regiment, 1 Armoured Regiment, 1 Field Regiment (artillery) and a large number of supporting units.

Air Force-No. 9 Squadron (Iroquois), No, 2 Squadron (Canberras), No. 35 Squadron (Caribou).

Prime Minister: Dinner for Newspaper Editors (Question No. 2470)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 26 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What are the names of all those who: (a) were invited to; and (b) attended, a dinner for newspaper editors held by the Prime Minister at the Lodge on 2 1 February 1 980.
  2. Who paid the fares to Canberra in each case.
  3. 3 ) What was on the menu and the wine list.
  4. What was the total cost to the Commonwealth of this dinner.
  5. Were Commonwealth cars provided for any of the editors.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Prime Ministers often entertain at the Lodge people representing all aspects of Australian interests. It is not my practice, nor was it the practice of any predecessors, to publish the details of such occasions.

Australian Army Reserve: Income Tax Returns (Question No. 2486)

Senator Young:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Is a member of the Australian Army Reserve who is employed not required to disclose on his income tax return any monies he receives from the Army for the bivouacs and parades which he attends.
  2. Is an unemployed person who is in the Australian Army Reserve required to disclose any monies he receives from the Army, which monies are taken into consideration in the payment of his unemployment benefits.
  3. If so, will the Treasurer take steps to remove this anomaly, which is unfair and will certainly discourage those who are unfortunately unemployed from joining the armed services.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that an army reservist, whether employed or unemployed, is required to disclose in his income tax return all pay, allowances and gratuities received by him as a member of the Reserve. However, such moneys, except any pay and allowances in respect of continuous full-time service, are not subject to income tax.
  2. I am advised that under the terms of the Social Services Act an amount payable to a person as remuneration for part-time duty as an army reservist is taken into account as income in the assessment of unemployment benefits. However, attendance allowance which is paid to defray costs incurred in attending parades is not income for the purposes of the Social Services Act.
  3. For the income mentioned to be disregarded in the assessment of unemployment benefit, an amendment to the Social Services Act would be required. I am advised that the Minister for Social Security, who is responsible for that Act, has the matter currently under consideration.

Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976 (Question No. 249S)

Senator Evans:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 4 March 1 980:

What made the representations for relaxation of the Orders made pursuant to the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976 referred to at page 6 of the Attorney-General’s Department Annual Report for 1978-79.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

Representations for relaxation of the Orders were made by:

U.S. Department of State; Westinghouse Electric Corporation: Pancontinental Mining Ltd: Getty Oil Company;

Engelhard Minerals and Chemicals Corporation; and Utah Mining Australia Limited.

Uranium: Westinghouse Case (Question No. 2496)

Senator Evans:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 4 March 1 980:

Will the Attorney-General make public the letter which the Australian Ambassador to the United States forwarded to Judge Marshall in the Westinghouse Electric Corporation litigation in Chicago and which is referred to by the Attorney in answer to Senator Young’s question without notice in the Senate on 14 November 1979 (see Senate Hansard, page 2240).

Senator Durack:
LP

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

Yes, action is in hand to have the two letters and attachments thereto made public as soon as possible.

Double Taxation Agreements (Question No. 2546)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 March 1980:

  1. With which countries has Australia entered into double taxation agreements.
  2. Which other countries have made approaches to Australia to enter into double taxation agreements.
  3. 3 ) With which of those countries are negotiations in train.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Australia has entered into comprehensive double taxation agreements with 12 countries. The countries concerned, and the dates on which the agreeements were signed, are- the United Kingdom (29 October 1946, revised 7 December 1967, amending protocol 29 January 1980); the United States of America ( 14 May 1953);

Canada ( 1 October 1957, revised 21 May 1980);

New Zealand (12 May 1 960, revised 8 November 1972);

Singapore ( 1 1 February 1969);

Japan(20 March 1969): the Federal Republic of Germany (24 November 1972);

Netherlands ( 17 March 1976);

France (13 April 1976);

Belgium ( 13 October 1977);

Philippines( 1 1 May 1979); and

Switzerland (28 February 1980).

Limited agreements dealing only with the taxation of airline profits have also been entered into with France (27 March 1969), Italy (13 April 1972) and Greece (5 May 1977).

The agreements with the Philippines, Switzerland and Greece, the revised agreement with Canada, and the protocol amending the United Kingdom agreement have not, as yet, entered into force. Legislation has been enacted to give the force of law in Australia to the Greek, Philippine and Swiss agreements and the United Kingdom protocol and legislation to give the Canadian agreement the force of law is proposed for later this year. The agreement with the Philippines will enter into force when instruments of ratification are exchanged but those with Greece and Switzerland, and the United Kingdom protocol, cannot enter into force until those countries have completed their constitutional processes.

  1. Other countries which have sought double taxation agreements with Australia are: Bangladesh, Denmark, Finland, Fiji, Greece, India, Iran, Ireland, Israel. Italy, Malaysia, Malta, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Thailand and Yugoslavia.
  2. Of those countries referred to in (2), discussions have been held or are proposed with: Denmark, Fiji, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Sweden and Thailand.

Discussions have also been held for the revision of the existing agreement with the United States of America, and there have been negotiations by correspondence with Austria, India and Yugoslavia for limited agreements for the avoidance of double taxation of income from international air transport

Deportation Orders (Question No. 2575)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 18 March 1980:

  1. How many deportation orders were issued in each State in each year from 1 972.
  2. For what general reasons have each of these orders been issued.
  3. How many departmental officers are engaged full time on efforts to control illegal immigrants in each State.
  4. What has been the cost of these deportations to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for each year since 1972.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 10,337 deportation orders were issued between1 January 1972 and 3 1 December 1979. These are represented below:

Statistics are not kept on a State by State basis.

  1. Categories of persons against whom deportation orders are signed include persons who: enter Australia illegally; fail to depart upon expiration of the period of their authorised stay; gain entry to Australia by false representation; are convicted of certain types of crimes.
  2. The numbers of departmental officers in each State or Territory who are engaged full-time in the location, apprehension and case-work of prohibited immigrants and on associated duties are 6 in New South Wales,5 in Victoria, and 8 in Australian Capital Territory. These officers are supported by other officers whose duties include functions not related to prohibited immigrants as follows: New South Wales, 3.6 officers; Victoria, 4 officers; Australian Capital Territory, 1.4 officers. Elsewhere, officers deal with prohibited immigrants as part of their duties: as follows: Western Australia, 1.9 officers; Queensland, 1.7 officers; South Australia, l.5 officers; Tasmania, 0.4 officers; Northern Territory, 0.5 officers.

(4)-

Alleged Social Security Conspiracy (Question No. 2579)

Senator Grimes:

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

  1. 1 ) How many of the persons taken into custody during the arrests in connection with the alleged social security conspiracy in 1978 were interviewed with interpreters present and interpreting.
  2. ) In how many cases, excepting the doctors and psychologist charged, were interpreters: (a) refused; and (b) considered unnecessary.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The matters raised by the honourable senator relate to evidence at the committal proceedings in the Social Security fraud cases presently before the court in Sydney. On 19 November last the magistrate expressed concern about possible infringement of the sub judice rule. The provision at this stage of a detailed answer to the honourable senator’s questions would constitute an infringement of the sub judice rule under the rulings of the Presiding Officers of the Parliament. Should the honourable senator wish to raise his questions after the matters have been resolved in the courts, I would then be in a position to answer them.

Alleged Social Security Conspiracy (Question No. 2580)

Senator Grimes:

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

  1. 1 ) How many persons were arrested in connection with the alleged social security conspiracy.
  2. Of those arrested: (a) how many were released immediately on bail; (b) how many were held overnight in police cells; (c) how many were held for more than 24 hours; (d) how many were held for more than 48 hours; and (e) how many were held for more than 3 days.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)181 persons were arrested.

  1. ) The matters raised by the honourable senator relate to evidence at the committal proceedings in the Social Security fraud cases presently before the court in Sydney. On 19

November last the magistrate expressed concern about possible infringement of the sub judice rule. The provision at this stage of a detailed answer to the honourable senator’s questions would constitute an infringement of the sub judice rule under the rulings of the Presiding Officers of the Parliament. Should the honourable senator wish to raise his questions after the matters have been resolved in the courts, I would then be in a position to answer them.

Unemployment: National Information Program (Question No. 2581)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) What is the extensive National Information Program which is aimed at ensuring that unemployed persons know of their rights, entitlements and obligations; what are the component parts of the program; and what is the cost of each component.
  2. How many advertisements has the Department of Social Security placed on: (a) television; and (b) radio, as part of the program in each financial year from 1975-76 to date, 1 9 March1980 to assist the unemployed.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. ) The National Information Program is the name given to the program developed by the Department with the aim of ensuring that persons eligible for a Social Security pension, benefit or service know of their rights, entitlements and obligations.

A number of information dissemination strategies are used to achieve this aim. These include the provision of information:

  1. a ) directly to clients or potential clients;
  2. through welfare agencies and other organisations;
  3. through the mass media; and
  4. ) via informal networks.

The availability of unemployment benefit is widely known throughout the community with virtually daily references in the press and on radio and television. Departmental information activities which cover unemployment benefit include participation on talk-back programs, production of displays, presentations of seminars, talks to community groups, foreign language broadcasts, preparation of articles for media distribution, activities of honorary information officers and distribution of leaflets and handbooks.

An unemployed person receives in these ways considerable information about rights, entitlements and obligations additional to what is provided directly by departmental officers.

Separate costing details are not maintained for information activities relating to unemployment benefit.

In 1979-80, $500,000 has been allocated to the National Information Program and the components of this expenditure are:

Leaflets $160,000

Advertisements (ethnic press) $48,000

Telephone directory-‘ Help Reference ‘ page $33,000

Displays $30,000

Pensioner concession booklets $27,000

Seminars $26,000

Production of ethnic language tapes $25,000

Other projects $ 1 5 1 , 000

  1. Because of the substantial cost of television and radio advertising, there has been no paid television or radio advertising between 1975-76 and 19 March 1980 as part of the National Information Program.

However, a series of 60 three-minute radio dramatisations was broadcast free of charge by 58 commercial radio stations in 1976-77, and a second series of 50 was broadcast in 1977-78. The cost of producing the material, which was $23,250, was met by my department. The series covered a wide range of Social Security programs.

Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976 (Question No. 2585)

Senator Evans:

asked the Attorney-General the following question, upon notice, on19 March 1980:

  1. Has the Attorney-General given consent or refused consent pursuant to s. 5 ( 1 ) of the Foreign Proceedings ( Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976; if so, will the Attorney-General provide details of: (a) all consents refused; and (b) all consents given in relation to each of paragraphs ( a ) to ( d ) of s. 5 ( 1 ) of the Act.
  2. ) Has any order of the Attorney-General, under the Act, been served pursuant to s. 6 (1 ) (b) of the Act; if so, will the Attorney-General provide full particulars of each such order.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. Yes. The details of all consents granted or refusals made on applications for my consent to the relaxation of the Orders under the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act are as follows:
  1. No orders have been served pursuant to section 6(1) (b) ofthe Act

Community Legal Centres (Question No. 2616)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 27 March 1 980:

  1. 1 ) What payments were made to community legal centres in each State in the year 1 978-79.
  2. What are the estimated payments to be made to community legal centres in each State in 1 979-80.
  3. Is the allocation of funds for community legal centres made on the basis of increasing the number of centres
  4. Is the allocation increased generally to provide a real increase in the amount of finance available to individual community legal centres.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In 1 978-79 an amount of $2 1 ,000 was paid to the Victorian Treasury for subsequent payment of the amounts of $ 10,500 each to the Nunawading Legal Service and the Tenants Advice Service respectively.
  2. In 1979-80, payments totalling $175,000 have been made to the New South Wales, Victorian, Queensland and South Australian State Treasuries for subsequent payment to the following services:

In addition, the balance of an earlier allocation of Commonwealth funds totalling $225,000 and held by the New South Wales Treasury was paid, at the request of the Commonwealth, to the following services in 1979-80:

  1. and (4) The allocation of funds for community legal centres is made to encourage innovative schemes delivering effective and economical legal aid. The amount of money which can be disbursed to any particular centre is dependent upon both the total level of funding and the number of centres eligible for funding. The total level of funding is a matter for Budget consideration.

Register of Medical Examination of Employees in Uranium Industry (Question No. 2631)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 March 1980:

Has any register of medical examination been kept of: (a) all those persons who were associated with nuclear experiments in Australia; (b) employees at the Rum Jungle Uranium mine; (c) employees at Mary Kathleen; (d) persons employed in the Uranium provinces in the Northern Territory; and (e) persons employed in the Uranium mine at Ben Lomond; if not, and as the mining of nuclear substances is a health hazard, will the Government keep such a register in future of all persons employed in this industry.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. From 1956 until 1968 regular medical tests of employees at Rum Jungle were undertaken by the then School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine.
  3. and (e) Medical examinations for employees at Mary Kathleen and Ben Lomond are a matter for the Queensland Government.
  4. Yes.

The Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores, 1975, prepared by my Department is at present being adopted for inclusion in the Environmental Protection (Nuclear Codes) Bill 1978 which is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Science and the Environment. The Code recommends continued health surveillance including pre-employment, continuing and post-employment medical examinations. Section 5.9.2. provides that on termination of employment all medical records of an employee shall be transferred to the central health authority and kept for 50 years.

Discussions on all aspects of the Code have been held with the States.

Townsville: Defence Forces (Question No. 2632)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 3 1 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) What is the likely increase in the number of personnel to be stationed at Townsville as a result of the Government’s decision to upgrade Defence Forces in the Northern Region.
  2. Is there already a serious housing shortage in the Townsville area which will be aggravated if the increased number of Service people to be transferred to Townsville are required to compete with local persons in the private housing market.
  3. Are there any plans for additional Service accommodation to be considered by State or Commonwealth housing departments.
Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The increase in the number of military personnel to be stationed at Townsville will be approximately 570.
  2. and (3) On present planning the build-up of Service personnel at Townsville will be progressive and the requirement for additional housing is planned to be met by construction or purchase through Government agencies. In the short term it may be necessary for some Service families to seek private rental accommodation.

United States National Harry Sylvanus: Citizenship Application (Question No. 2635)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 3 1 March 1 980:

  1. 1 ) What form of investigation was made into the citizenship application of United States national Harry Sylvanus (Wainwright), now a resident of Port Macquarie, New South Wales, and would a check be automatically made with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  2. If false information was given by Mr Wainwright in the citizenship application will that lead to cancellation of the citizenship.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Under the provisions of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 as amended applicants for the grant of Australian citizenship are required to be of good character. Details of each applicant for citizenship are referred to the Australian Federal Police (previously the Commonwealth Police). In Mr Wainwright ‘s case it is noted that at the time of the grant of Australian citizenship to him, he was not reported as having been convicted of any criminal offence, nor having any outstanding charges against him. Overseas checking is not automatically instituted in respect of applicants for the grant of Australian citizenship. As indicated above there was no cause for such action in respect of Mr Wainwright’s application.
  2. Deprivation of Australian citizenship can only occur under section 21 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 as amended following a conviction of a person for an offence under section 50 of that Act, in that he knowingly made a false representation or statement, or concealed a material circumstance in connection with the grant of Australian citizenship to him, and the Minister is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for that person to continue to be an Australian citizen. Inquiries with respect to Mr Wainwright’s application for citizenship have been completed and the matter has been referred to the AttorneyGeneral’s Department for advice. In these circumstances it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on this particular case at this stage.

Middle East Oil: Direct Purchase by Australia (Question No. 2644)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 15 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) During the recent visit to the Middle East did the Minister discuss with governments of countries visited the direct purchase of oil by Australia; if so, with which governments did such discussions take place.
  2. What was the response from governments with which such proposals were discussed and has any indication been given of the amounts of oil which might be available; if so: (a) what are they; (b) over what time period; and (c) under what conditions might they be accepted.
  3. Did the Minister sign or agree to sign any documents which purport to guarantee the supply of oil to Australia on a direct purchase basis or through purchases by oil companies operating in Australia; if so: (a) what is the text of any such documents; (b) will they be released in Australia, if so, when, and if not, why not.
  4. Did the Minister visit Kuwait.
  5. Did the Government or any Minister of the Government of Kuwait indicate during his visit that during the week commencing 31 March it would be cutting back oil production and sales to major international oil companies; if so, was any indication given of what the effect such reductions might have on the price of crude oil and the supply to Australia.
  6. Was the Minister accompanied by an officer or officers of the Department of National Development and Energy: if so, what was the name of the officer or officers.
Senator Carrick:
LP

-The Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) As indicated in my statement in the House of Representatives on 2 1 April 1 980 concerning my visit to the Arabian Peninsula and Malaysia, I had the benefit of a number of meetings at which the oil supply and price situation was discussed. During those discussions I also took the opportunity to explore general attitudes towards direct transactions in oil; the responses were in very general terms.
  2. No.
  3. No.
  4. See answer to (4).
  5. No.

Australian Composers of Music: Royalty (Question No. 2647)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 2 April 1 980:

Will the Attorney-General consider increasing the royalty payable to Australian composers of music, which has remained at 5 per cent of the retail sale price of records since 1912, in line with the recommendations of the Spicer and St John inquiries?

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The Copyright Tribunal, under the chairmanship of Mr Justice St John, has recently inquired into the statutory royalty payable to copyright owners for the use of their musical works in commercial sound recordings. Its report has been tabled and published as a Parliamentary Paper.

The Copyright Act provides that the Governor-General acting on the advice of the Executive Council may now, after taking into account the report, make regulations to vary the royalty rate in such respect as he thinks equitable.

The Tribunal has recommended that it would be equitable to increase the royalty rate from 5 per cent of the retail price per record to 6.75 per cent of that price. The Tribunal estimated that this would increase the price of a $8.50 record by about 25 cents.

Record Companies on the one hand and Music Publishers and composers, on the other, were represented before the Tribunal. Both have made competing submissions concerning the adoption of the recommendations in the report. I have met representatives of each side to discuss its submission and each has been given an opportunity to comment on the other’s submission.

My Department is presently examining the report and the submissions and I will endeavour to have my consideration of the matter completed as soon as possible.

Offences under Social Services Act (Question No. 2649)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 5 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) How many of the prosecutions of persons charged with offences under the Social Services Act 1947: (a) had committed only one offence; (b) had committed only two offences;

    1. had committed more than two offences; in the quarters: (i) September-December 1979; and (ii) January-March 1980, for each State.
  2. How many of the above prosecutions were in respect of offences involving: (a) less than $200; (b) less than $500; (c) less than $1,000; (d) between $1,000 and $2,000; and (e) $2,000.
  3. What was the average cost of prosecuting a person under the Social Services Act 1 947 for the year 1 978-79.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

-The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2 ) and (3) The information required by the honourable senator is either not available or is not readily available in the form requested, The number of prosecutions under the Social Services Act 1947 for the quarters ended 31 December 1 979 and 3 1 March 1 980 is as follows:

It is estimated that, in respect of prosecutions undertaken during the period from September 1 979 to March 1 980, over 85 per cent were for more than one offence. It is also estimated that over 54 per cent involved overpayments in excess of $500.

High Court Building: Cost of Opening Ceremony (Question No. 2665)

Senator Evans:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many persons can be accommodated at the High Court opening ceremony and how many are being invited.
  2. To which category of persons (e.g. Federal Judge, State Judge, Member of the House of Representatives, Senator etc.) are invitations being sent, and to how many persons in each category.
  3. What is the likely total cost to the Commonwealth of the opening ceremony, and what are the components of that cost.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1,143 persons can be accommodated at the High Court opening ceremony; as at 14 May 1980, 1,223 invitations had been issued.
  2. Invitations to the following categories of persons had been issued as at 14 May 1980; the numbers of persons invited in each category includes spouses:
  1. The sum of $22,000 has been provided by my Department in additional estimates of expenditure for 1979-80 to cover the estimated cost of the opening ceremony. The com ponents of this cost arc as follows:

High Court Building: Final Cost (Question No. 2666)

Senator Evans:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) What is the current estimate of the final cost of the High Court building.
  2. What amounts of the increase over the original estimate of $ 1 8,540,870 are attributable to:

    1. ) costs resulting from rise and fall provisions in the contract; and
    2. adjustments to provisional items.
  3. What are the details of the adjustments to provisional items made: (a) before 30 June 1979; and (b) since 30 June 1979.
  4. What specifically is the cost of the British Arms to be displayed on the lakeside glass wall and the Australian Arms to be displayed on the front glass wall of the building.
  5. What is the current estimated total cost of furniture, fittings and artwork for the completed building.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) S49. lm. The estimate of final cost is provisional.
  2. (a)$15.8m.(b)$11.3m.
  3. The total value of adjustments and provisional items made

    1. before 30 June 1979 is S 10.5m, and
    2. since 30 June 1979is$0.8m.

During the course of the High Court contract there have been many hundreds of variations to provisional items and their related several trades and sub-trades, the principal among them being concrete, carpentry and joinery, water trades, hydraulic, mechanical and electrical services, fire and lift services, paving and tiling, acoustic, office partitioning, contractors’ preliminaries, and extensions of time.

  1. Cost of Royal Arms $27,700. Cost of Australian Arms $31,000.
  2. Cost of built in furniture (excluding loose furniture), $648,000. Cost of fittings, $947,000. Cost of artworks, $230,000.

Social Security Benefits (Question No. 2667)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

Employment Schemes (Question No. 2669)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 15 April 1980:

  1. I ) What employment schemes have been implemented by the Government since 1 975.

    1. 1 ) How many people in each of the States and Territories were receiving payments under (a) family allowances; and (b) payments to pensioners ‘children, as at December 1976.
    2. How many people are currently receiving such payments.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The number of -people in each of ‘the States and Territories receiving payments under: (a) family allowances; and (b) payments to pensioners’ children, as at December 1976, and as at January 1980 (the latest period for which data are available) were:

    1. Family allowance*
  1. Payments for pensioners’ children (additional pension)

    1. How many people have been employed, have received, or are receiving training under each of these schemes.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2) See Table below:

Training of Shearers (Question No. 2672)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a statement by Mr Barrie Gregory, former Chairman of the National Shearing Industry Training Council in which he said: ‘It’s not a disaster yet, but in three or four years time we ‘11 have a real shortage unless we get right on the job of training new shearers’, and ‘ fortunately there’s no shortage of young men who want to be shearers- only of training facilities’.
  2. How many new shearers have been trained in each of the States in each year from 1 974-75 to 1 979-80 inclusive.
  3. What funds have been made available specifically for training shearers in each of the years from 1974-75 to 1979-80.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The availability of adequate numbers of competent shearers is of considerable concern to me as Minister responsible for both the Department of Primary Industry and the Australian Wool Corporation. Responsibility for shearer training lies within the portfolio of my colleague, the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, Mr Viner, but naturally there is liaison between us and our Departments on this important function. Specifically, we are both aware of the quoted statement by Mr Gregory.

Although it may be the case that many young men express the wish to become shearers, and subject to the likelihood that the position differs between the various States, one of the disappointing experiences of the Australian Wool Corporation has been a high dropout rate, in excess of 50 per cent in some cases, among learner shearers who had achieved shearing tallies in the order of 80 per day in coaching schools.

The Government has accordingly been giving close attention to the measures which might assist not only in attracting men to the shearing industry and training them appropriately, but also to the means which might be pursued to maintain their numbers once they have entered the industry.

This will require close co-operation between the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs, the Australian Workers’ Union, the Australian Wool Corporation, woolgrowers and probably authorities concerned with Technical and Further Education and steps have already been taken to secure that co-operation.

  1. Most shearer training is currently carried out by private shearing contractors who do not provide information on the number of new shearers trained. However, some State wool industry training committees and some State departments have organised small shearer training schools during the period 1974-75 to 1979-80 with the aid of Government NEAT moneys, facilities provided by TAFE and instructors provided by a private shearing contractor, TAFE and the Australian Wool Corporation.

In addition, the Australian Wool Corporation operates a quality shearing service, funded by the Wool Research Trust Fund, to which both wool growers and the Government contribute. This quality shearing service is mainly confined to improving the existing skills of persons with some shearing experience throughout Australia. However, the Corporation also provides instructors for shearing schools organised by State Departments of Agriculture or Primary Industries and by Technical Education and Industry Training Committees.

It is not readily possible to provide a breakdown of the allocation of moneys to each of these services but total allocations are set out below.

  1. I have been informed that funds expended by the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs, from NEAT allocations, to train shearers have been as follows:

The approved annual budgets of the Australian Wool Corporation Quality Shearing Coaching Service have been as follows:

Office of National Assessments Report: Post-Tito Yugoslavia’ (Question No. 2679)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

Can Senator Mulvihill receive a copy of the Office of National Assessments report entitled ‘Post- Tito Yugoslavia ‘ prepared by Mr Andrew A. Campbell.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

It would not be in the national interest to make public on each occasion reports and assessments produced by the Office of National Assessments nor even the fact that ONA had produced a particular report or assessment.

Commonwealth Public Service: Dismissals for Revealing Information to Media (Question No. 2680)

Senator Rocher:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many Commonwealth Public Servants have been dismissed during the past ten years for revealing information to the media, or for any other reason.
  2. What were the names, circumstances and offences in each case.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 have been advised that a total of 74 Commonwealth Public Servants were dismissed in the ten years 1970-1979 inclusive. This figure excludes staff of the former PostmasterGeneral ‘s Department. A further five have been dismissed to 20 May 1980. In none of these cases was revealing information to the media the ground for dismissal.
  2. While the names of officers who are dismissed are gazetted at the time of dismissal, details of the circumstances and offences are not published. Consistent with paragraph 45 of the Public Service Board ‘s Guidelines for the Keeping of Personal Records on Staff in the APS’, I believe that, for reasons of personal privacy, a list of names associated with details of offences should not be made available in answer to this Question.

The Public Service Board has. however, provided the following statistical analysis of dismissals for the period 1 970- 1 979 by reason for dismissal:

Aid to Kampuchea (Question No. 2686)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Will the Australian Government accede to the request of the Thai Government, made during the Easter holiday period, to convene a new conference on international aid to Kampuchea.
  2. What response is the Australian Government making to reports that drought and a shortage of seed have produced the threat of another famine in Kampuchea.
  3. Are the funds pledged earlier by the international community for Kampuchean famine relief now almost exhausted.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A Ministerial level meeting will bc held in Geneva on 26 and 27 May to consider further humanitarian assistance and relief to the Kampuchean people. The meeting is being convened by the United Nations Secretary-General as a result of ASEAN-sponsored resolution, which Australia supported, adopted on 1 May 1980 at a meeting of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) held in New York. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will lead the Australian delegation. Thailand has played a central role in the initiative. The Geneva meeting has a three point agenda: (a) Relief programs within Kampuchea; (b) Situation of refugees and displaced persons; (c) Pledges of further assistance. lt is hoped that the meeting will galvanise international relief efforts for Kampuchea.
  2. and (3) Kampuchea faces a renewed threat of serious food shortages within the next two months as distribution of food aid in the pipeline is completed and the present harvest is consumed. The numbers of refugees in Thailand have stabilised, but their needs remain substantial and considerable pressure on Thai resources continues. This situation coincides with the conclusion of Phase I of the Kampuchean relief operation.

Against this background, the United Nations reported that additional commitments totalling $US262m were required to support Phase II of the joint program through to December 1980.

Consequently, on 26 March 1980, I announced that the Government had decided to pledge a minimum of a further $3m towards the United Nations-sponsored Kampuchea Relief Appeal. The pledge was announced at a meeting held in New York on 26 March to review Phase I of the joint international agency relief program for Kampuchea and to seek commitments for a second pledge.

Decisions about the specific aspects of the program for which Australian funds will be used will be made in consultation with the international agencies. The supply of rice seed has already been designated as a priority item for the relief operation as it will contribute to greater self-sufficiency in food throughout the country. Large quantities of rice seed are currently being sent into Kampuchea.

In addition to approximately $ 10m subscribed by individuals to the International Disaster Emergency Committee Appeal, the Government committed a total of $7.8m towards Phase I of the relief operation mounted by the United Nations agencies and voluntary aid organisations within Kampuchea and among Khmer refugees in Thailand. This program, for which the total assistance pledged was $US210m, appeared to have temporarily averted a major human catastrophe. The Government’s pledges to humanitarian relief in Kampuchea now total $ 10.8m.

Shipment of Livestock (Question No. 2691)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 1 7 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) To what countries have livestock been shipped from Australia in each of the last five years.
  2. What type of livestock were involved in each shipment.
  3. What were the numbers of stock in each shipment and from what State or Territory did the shipment originate.
  4. Were the livestock in every shipment inspected by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) or a qualified veterinarian prior to departure of the ship or aircraft.
  5. What was the difference in numbers in each shipment between embarkation and disembarkation.
Senator Carrick:
LP

-The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2) and (3 ) Information relating to these three questions is contained in tables (A) to (K). Tables (A) to (H) are based on Department of Primary Industry records and tables (I) to (K) on Australian Bureau of Statistics records. Figures for horses, pigs and goats are not available by States.

  1. Yes.
  2. The answer is contained in Table (L). The figures are based on Department of Transport records of transport by sea.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Interviews with Politicans (Question No. 2692)

Senator Peter Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Which members of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, including the Premier, Ministers, Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Country Party, were interviewed on Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) radio and television programs during 1979.
  2. On which particular programs did they appear, at what dme was the program broadcast or televised and what was the total length of time of each interview.
  3. Who was the person in the ABC responsible. for arranging each interview.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The information sought by the honourable senator is shown on the following table.
  2. Depending on circumstances, the interviewer, the Executive Producer or a Production Assistant for the relevant program.

New Zealand Cheese: Access to Australian Market (Question No. 2707)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did the Prime Minister, in the joint communique issued with the New Zealand Prime Minister on21 March 1980 state that: ‘The Prime Ministers endorsed the following principles- (a) the freest possible movement of goods between the two countries’.
  2. Does the statement mean that New Zealand cheese will have easier access to the Australian market; if not, what does it mean; if so, how does the Prime Minister reconcile this with the statement made by the Minister for Primary Industry, on the same day that ‘ … the Government will not allow the Australian dairy industry to be adversely affected by economic co-operation and that we are making this point most plain in our negotiations with New Zealand ‘.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. ) and (2) The statement referred to by the senator was indeed one of the broad principles for the further development and diversification of the economic relationship between Australia and New Zealand agreed on during my meeting with the Prime Minister of New Zealand on 20-2 1 March 1980.

The statement, however, should not be read in isolation. The joint communique makes many qualifications which highlight the need for the national interests of both Australia and New Zealand to be taken fully into account.

Social Security Benefits: Police Investigations (Question No. 2718)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 23 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Are reports that Federal Police would concentrate on catching what were termed ‘dole cheats’ in Brisbane in the next few months correct.
  2. How many police are involved in this exercise, and at whose instigation is this apparently large operation being mounted.
  3. What is the Department of Social Security’s involvement in the operation.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) No. There is no specific escalation of effort by the Australian Federal Police in Brisbane, to apprehend persons suspected of ‘dole cheating’. Australian Federal Police are engaged in normal duties within the resources available.
  2. See answer to (1).
  3. It is normal procedure for the Australian Federal Police to maintain close liaison with the Department of Social Security.

Department of Social Security: Recruitment of Staff

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 23 April 1980:

  1. Has a ‘freeze’ been imposed on recruitment of staff into the Department of Social Security; if so: (a) how many staff per State does the Department of Social Security anticipate will be ‘lost’ through ‘natural wastage’ by 30 June 1980; (b) how many temporary staff per State does the Department of Social Security anticipate will be retrenched to maintain the staff ceiling for this financial year; and (c) when will the freeze be lifted.
  2. How is relief currently being arranged for staff on leave.
  3. What action will be taken where ‘key’ staff (e.g. data processing operators and social workers) take leave or resign and internal replacements cannot be found, and what effect will this have on the Department’s payments system.
  4. What were fortnightly statistics on: (a) employment benefit new claims and continuing payments; and (b) the number of counter inquiries, for each Queensland regional office from December 1979 to March1980.
  5. 5 ) Have Department of Social Security staff shortages led regional offices to refuse emergency payments to people entitled to payment and suffering hardship.
  6. What are the details of the increased demand for emergency relief from voluntary welfare agencies that has resulted from staff shortages over the last three months.
  7. To what extent is it anticipated that the freeze will increase such demand.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) My Department’s program for recruitment of staff is aimed at ensuring the number employed at 30 June 1980 does not exceed the approved ceiling. A one-month ‘freeze’ on recruitment operated from 14 February 1980. However, there is currently no ‘ freeze ‘ in force.
  1. There is no ‘freeze ‘currently in force.

    1. Staff on leave are normally relieved from resources built into the establishment of each office in the Department
    2. Recruitment action for key staff operating the payments system will proceed as normal and no problems are expected. Although there can be problems in recruiting social workers to country offices, these staff are not directly associated with the payments system. 4 (a) Statistics on the number of claims lodged and number of benefits current for unemployment benefits for the period December 1 979 to March 1 980 are:
  1. b) The number of counter inquiries for each Queensland regional office for the period December 1 979 to March 1 980 are:
  1. No.
  2. and (7) Department is not aware of any such increase.

East Hills and West Bridge Refugee Hostels (Question No. 2726)

Senator Mason:

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

  1. 1 ) How many south-east Asian refugees are housed at the East Hills and Westbridge refugee hostels.
  2. Is the availability of foodstuffs and meals with which the refugees are familiar an important factor in the welfare of refugees.
  3. Are south-east Asian style meals available to refugees at the East Hills and Westbridge refugee hostels; if not, why not.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. As at 12 May 1980 there were 1095 Indo-Chinese refugees housed at East Hills and 606 Indo-Chinese refugees housed at Westbridge.
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes. Multichoice menus are provided to satisfy the reasonable requirements of residents in all Commonwealth migrant centres.

Television Programs in Alice Springs (Question No. 2727)

Senator Robertson:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 23 April 1 980:

  1. Has there been widespread criticism of the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) television programs telecast in Alice Springs, and has the ABC program controller in Sydey been invited to attend a public meeting in that town.
  2. What action is proposed to investigate and, hopefully, meet the criticisms raised by the people of Alice Springs.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. The Mayor of Alice Springs has informed the ABC’s Controller of Television Programs that he received a very good response to his public request for written complaints. As a result he offered to call a public meeting at which the Controller would be welcome.
  2. As the nature of the complaints was not disclosed, further information has been sought by the Controller from the Mayor.

Youth Programs: Involvement of Commonwealth Departments (Question No. 2730)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) What involvement has each Commonwealth Department undertaken, as an employer, in all work experience and youth programs operated by the Government.
  2. How many people have been employed, and how much money has been expended, by each Commonwealth Department, on these programes
  3. Has any Department withdrawn from any scheme due to lack of funds.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Public Service Board has advised that:

1 ) and (2) Commonwealth departments and Public Service Act authorities participate in the following major work experience and youth training programs: the Special Youth Employment Training Program (SYETP); the National Employment Strategy for Aboriginals (NESA), and the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service work therapy scheme.

The following table shows the number of people placed under these programs up to 30 April 1 980:

The Special Youth Employment Training Program is funded from an appropriation controlled by the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs, which advises that total expenditure on the program in Commonwealth departments and Public Service Act authorities between January 1979 (when Commonwealth departments commenced participation in the program) and April 1980 was approximately $2.1m.

The work experience element of the National Employment Strategy for Aboriginals is also funded from an appropriation controlled by the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs, which advises that total expenditure on this aspect of the program in the above departments and authorities between August 1978 (when trainees were first placed in Commonwealth departments) and March 1980 was approximately $2. 7m.

Work therapy training for the handicapped is provided as part of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service program administered by the Department of Social Security. The Department advises that no separate record is maintained of the cost associated with providing training in Commonwealth departments. Statistics on the participation of Commonwealth departments in providing work therapy training under the program have been maintained only since December 1979.

  1. No department has been forced to withdraw from any of the programs referred to above because of lack of funds.

Permanent Heads Committee: Reports from Social Welfare Policy Secretariat (Question No. 2733)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 April 1980:

  1. Have any meetings of the Permanent Heads’ Committee, to which the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat reports, been held specifically to deal with reports from the Secretariat; if so, on what dates were the meetings held.
  2. If no meetings have been held solely for the purpose of considering Social Welfare Policy Secretariat reports, what was the purpose ofthe Government announcement that the Secretariat would be reporting to that particular Permanent Heads ‘Committee.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Since the establishment of the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat, all meetings of the Permanent Heads’ Committee have discussed reports from SWPS or matters concerning SWPS establishment and role.

De Facto Wives (Question No. 2737)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 April 1980:

Is the Minister now able to provide further information in relation to Senator Colston’s question without notice (see Senate Hansard, page 1331), dated 2 April 1980, relating to the case of a man claiming a de facto wife as a dependant for income tax purposes.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

As this matter is the responsibility of my colleague the Treasurer, he has been requested to provide further information for reply to the honourable senator’s question without notice of 2 April 1 980.

Casey University (Question No. 2738)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 April 1980:

When will the Minister provide the statement, relating to the Government’s decision to override the recommendation of the Public Works Committee Report on the rejection of the Casey University proposal, which he undertook to provide in answer to Senator Colston’s question without notice, dated 28 February 1980 (see Senate Hansard, page 399).

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

See the statement on 15 May 1980 by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence (Hansard, page 2318).

Appointment of Special Constables by Queensland Government (Question No. 2740)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 April 1980:

Is the Minister now able to provide further information in relation the Senator Colston’s question (see Senate Hansard, page 1 188, dated 31 March 1980), relating to the appointment of special constables by the Queensland Government.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

As this matter is the responsibility of my colleague the Attorney-General, he has been requested to provide further information for reply to the honourable senator’s question without notice of 3 1 March 1980.

Location of CSIRO Division of Fisheries and Oceanography (Question No. 2743)

Senator Hamer:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 29 April 1980:

In view of the decision, announced by the Prime Minister on 15 April 1980, on the location of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) Division of Fisheries and Oceanography, will the Minister now provide an answer to part (3) of Senator Hamer’s Question on Notice No. 2390 relating to the comparative virtues of the Hoban and port Phillip/Westernport Bay sites.

Are the following criteria relevant in considering relocation: (a) close proximity to priority areas for research, so that the costs of operating vessels are minimised; (b) access to a broad and active scientific community; (c) close relations with the users or research specifically the oil and gas industry, fishing, offshore technology and construction, sea transport and Navy dockyards; (d) a good marine site readily accessible to national and international visitors; (e) technical and logistic support; and (f) quick access to other major cities.

How do Hobart and Port Phillip/Westernport Bay sites compare using each criterion listed above.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The honourable senator asks me to compare two sites, Hobart and Port Phillip/Westernport Bay, using a limited number of criteria. This comparison involves making judgments between a site with know characteristics in Hoban, and hypothetical sites on either Port Phillip or Westernport Bay. Within these constraints the answers to the honourable senator’s question are:

Criterion:

Hoban superior.

Both sites comparable.

Port Phillip/Westernport superior. (Some ofthe organisations listed are not users of the results of the Division ‘s researchers).

Hobart superior.

Both sites comparable.

Hobart marginally superior to Westernport Bay and comparable to Port Phillip.

Kailis Groote Eylandt Fisheries: Trawling Licence (Question No. 2755)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 30 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Why have trawling licences not been granted to the Australian firm Kailis Groote Eylandt Fisheries, to fish in waters adjoining the Northern Territory where Taiwanese and other foreign trawlers are operating.
  2. Will this result in the initial loss of at least 63 jobs in the Northern Territory.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Kailis Groote Eylandt Pty Ltd recently sought additional licences to operate prawn trawlers in the limited entry northern prawn fishery, access to which is totally prohibited to all foreign fishermen. Indeed only those Australian fishermen who hold endorsed Fishing Boat Licences are permitted to operate there.

The decision to deny the company’s request followed adoption by the Australian Fisheries Council in November last year of a management plan for the northern prawn fishery beyond 1980. The plan which was developed in close consultation with all sectors of the fishing industry includes, amongst other things, a recommendation that no further licences for the fishery be granted at this time.

It should be noted that except for the restriction applying in the northern prawn fishery no Australian has been denied a licence to trawl for fish in northern Australian waters.

  1. It is understood that the decision by Kailis Groote Eylandt Pty Ltd to close the prawn processing line at Groote Eylandt has resulted in the loss of jobs for a number of persons.

The decision to close the plant was not the result of any action on the part of the Government. I have personally discussed the problems of the processing plant with Mr Kailis, as a result of which a special meeting of Commonwealth and State officials is to be convened to determine what if anything can be done to enable resumption of the processing operation.

World Wilderness Congress (Question No. 27S7)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 29 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Is the Prime Minister to open the World Wilderness Congress in Cairns on 8 June of this year, and are the major financial backers of the Congress: (a) the Australian Government; (b) the Queensland Government; (c) Carlton and United Breweries; (d) Comalco; (e) Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited (CSR); and MIM Holdings.
  2. Can the Prime Minister explain why the North Queensland Lands Council has not been invited to address the Congress.
  3. Can the Prime Minister also explain why the organisers of the Congress have been unable to publicly state that the Congress agenda has not been directly influenced by the Congress ‘ major financial backers.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)1 have agreed to open the Second World Wilderness Conference in Cairns on 9 June this year.

According to the provisional program and registration form, the principal sponsors of the Congress at 3 1 December 1979 were the Australian Government, the State Government of Queensland, Carlton and United Breweries,

Comalco, Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited (CSR), and MIM Holdings.

  1. and (3) These are matters for the Board of Trustees of the Congress. However, I point out that while the Commonwealth Government has assisted the Congress by contributing S30.000 towards its operations, it has made no attempteither direct or indirect- to influence the agenda of the Congress.

Commonwealth Office Block, Launceston (Question No. 2761)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 30 April 1 980:

  1. What plans have been made for the building of a Commonwealth Office Block in Launceston.
  2. ) Has a site been selected and /or purchased.
  3. Is the Department of Administrative Services consulting with the Launceston City Council and the State Government over the proposed building.
  4. If no decision has been made when can a decision be expected.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The possible construction of a Commonwealth office building in Launceston is being considered as part of the Government’s overall strategy for providing Commonwealth office accommodation throughout Australia.
  2. A site has been selected on the comer of St John and Cimitiers Streets. The Commonwealth owns part of the site and proposes to purchase the remainder from the Postal Commission at an appropriate time.
  3. Yes, discussions have been held.
  4. It is not known when a decision will be taken to proceed. This will depend on the Government’s overall accommodation requirement priorities and on budgetary considerations.

Special Broadcasting Service (Question No. 2766)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 30 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Does radio station 2EA in Sydney, after five years of operation, have no provision for the operation of an Appeals Board.
  2. How many disputes have arisen between broadcasters and co-ordinators and what avenue exists for broadcasters to have their complaints heard and arbitrated upon.
  3. What is the status of a ‘rank-and-file’ broadcaster in Radio Ethnic Australia.
  4. Is such a broadcaster contracted by the station management or is he a sub-contractor in relation to his co-ordinator.
  5. Has the station management/Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) relinquished its authority to the co-ordinators; if so, by what method has this been done.
  6. What training schemes are provided for Ethnic Radio broadcasters by the SBS and what funds have been allocated for this purpose.
  7. How many people have received training for Ethnic Broadcasting.
  8. What are the co-ordinators for the various language groups concerned with 2EA and which of these coordinators are also principal broadcasters for the different language groups.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Although it is true that Radio Station 2EA in Sydney has been in operation for nearly five years, it must be realised that ethnic broadcasting was put on a permanent footing by the establishment of the Special Broadcasting Service, which assumed responsibility for the management of 2EA in January 1978.

The SBS has established a system whereby appropriately representative committees of appeal or review can be appointed by the Service when the need arises. The need to utilise the appeal process at 2EA has not occurred to date.

Appeals against decisions taken by the SBS may be referred to one of these committees if, in the opinion of the SBS, there is a prima facie case to review disciplinary actions or other decisions taken by management concerning broadcasters and co-ordinators.

  1. Since the SBS’s assumption of responsibility for 2EA, very few disputes have arisen between broadcasters and coordinators. Where they have been brought to the attention of management, they have been handled by appropriate ad hoc committees, which were usually chaired by the Assistant Director of 2EA or his/her nominees and included representation of the party or parties that were directly affected.

In all cases, broadcasters and co-ordinators have been able to apply to more senior levels of management if they wanted to appeal against any decision taken by the Management of 2EA.

It has always been the policy of the SBS to settle disputes among broadcasters and co-ordinators amicably to sustain a team spirit, which is considered essential for the successful operation of language programs on ethnic radio.

  1. On 25 October 1978 the Special Broadcasting Service released a discussion paper containing suggestions for the reorganisation of the structure of broadcasting groups on 2EA and 3EA. A large number of submissions were received from people associated with ethnic radio and from organisations and individuals in the community. As a result of these the Special Broadcasting Service released its policy for the restructuring on 6 February 1 979.

The new policy provided for the contracting of both coordinators and broadcasters on an annual basis, applications for all positions would be called, and auditions would be conducted for applicants who had not had extensive experience with ethnic radio. The Special Broadcasting Service also set down requirements for the minimum number of broadcasters to be appointed within each language program. The duties of co-ordinators and broadcasters were also specified.

The structure of broadcasting language groups on Radio 2EA allows for a coordinator per language group, broadcasters and contributors.

There are no ‘principal ‘ or ‘rank-and-file ‘ broadcasters.

Broadcasters are persons contracted directly by the SBS to perform any one or a number of the following: microphone work; casual contributions; transmission; scripting; production/presentation; research; and are paid for their services based on the number of programs they produce and at rates negotiated between the SBS and the Associations of Ethnic Broadcasters and Coordinators, and agreed by the Public Service Board. Others who perform any of the above listed duties (paid or unpaid ), but who have not been appointed for contract engagement as Broadcasters by the SBS, are known as ‘Contributors’.

  1. As indicated in reply to (3) above, a broadcaster is contracted direct to the Special Broadcasting Service.
  2. Broadcasters are, in the first instance, responsible to the co-ordinator of their language group for the contents of their contribution to the program. The Special Broadcasting Service retains the ultimate supervisory role and at no time has it delegated to the co-ordinators or to any person the authority to engage or dismiss broadcasters, nor does it intend to do so.
  3. and (7) No formal training schemes are established to date. However, members of the Executive and staff of the SBS are required to make themselves available to assist broadcasters and afford them individual guidance. The past year has seen a substantial upgrading of facilities made available to the broadcasters by the SBS.

The SBS has for some time been investigating the feasibility of establishing training facilities through appropriate external institutions subject to course-structure and methods of financing, being agreed to. At this stage, it is not envisaged that formal training will be introduced internally by the SBS. However, proposals fororganising’in-house’workshops will be considered in the near future.

  1. There are thirty-six co-ordinators at 2EA. All, except MrDesai, are also broadcasters. It should be noted that according to the SBS’s policy for the Restructuring of Broadcasting Groups on Ethnic Radio, a co-ordinator has to be contracted separately as a broadcaster in addition to his/her contract engagement as co-ordinator. A co-ordinator might choose not to be a broadcaster. Indeed at 3EA in Melbourne the co-ordinators of the Greek and Italian programs are not broadcasters.

Listed are the Co-ordinators of 2EA

Call Charge Queries (Question No. 2768)

Senator Primmer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 30 April 1980:

What options are available to Telecom to curtail:

the number of call charge queries which were stated to be 50,000 in capital cities alone in 1977-78; and

the consequent expenditure of $2.5 million to resolve such queries.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Telecom Australia advises that the 50,000 telephone accounts queried in 1977-78 represents only 0.8 per cent of the total accounts issued in that year. This figure represents a steady decrease in the incidence of queried accounts over the last four years. However, Telecom has no desire to curtail or deter any of its customers from querying their accounts; in fact, each account issued invites the subscriber to ring a specified number if they are in any doubt about any item on the account.

A system of Call Charge Recording providing subscribers with itemised accounting for ISD and STD calls may reduce the need for formal call charge queries.

Call Charge Recording for ISD calls has already been introduced in a number of selected capital city exchanges. It is proposed to introduce progressively a similar service for STD Call Charge Recording to enable subscribers to have details of these calls listed in telephone accounts.

Croatian National Congress (Australasia) (Question No. 2775)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister noted the advertisement appearing in the Canberra Times dated 1 May 1980, at page 5 which advertises the aims ofthe Croatian National Congress (Australasia) and bears the signatures of: (a) General Secretary, Mate Kesina; (b) Foreign Advisor, Mario Despoja; and (c) Press Advisor, Dinka Crgic-Sidic.
  2. Are these people Australian citizens: if so, when was their Australian citizenship attained
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. Records of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs show that ‘persons’ of the following names were granted Australian citizenship on the dates indicated:

Koongarra Uranium Project: Environmental Impact Statement (Question No. 2778)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 13 May 1980:

Does the Environmental Impact Statement by the Canadian uranium mining company, Noranda Limited, for the Koongarra uranium project comply with Section 8, paragraph (b) of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act; if not, what actions does the Minister propose to take to ensure that the Noranda Company prepares an Environmental Impact Statement which does comply with the Act.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The final environmental impact statement prepared by Noranda Australia Limited for the Koongarra uranium project has been prepared and submitted in accordance with the Administrative Procedures under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act.

Noranda and the Department of Science and the Environment have agreed under paragraph 9.4 (c) of the Administrative Procedures that the examination period of the impact statement be extended to enable further consideration of the proposal by the local Aboriginal people. Action will be taken to meet the requirements of Section 8 (b) ofthe Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act when this examination has been completed.

Wool Sales: Secondary Boycott (Question No. 2784)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 13 May 1980:

Did the Australian Wool Corporation refuse to allow sales of wool held in store by brokers whose employees were not on strike during the recent Storemen and Packers’ strike; if so, was legal advice sought to ensure that this action did not constitute a secondary boycott.

Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

Decision concerning auction sales rosters for wool are always made by the Joint Wool Selling Organisation (JWSO) which is a 14 member committee representative of the Australian Council of Wool Buyers (four members),

National Council of Wool Selling Brokers (four), Australian Council of Trade Unions (two), Woolgrowers (two), Australian Wool Corporation (two) with a woolgrower chairman.

As a consequence of the industrial dispute between the Storemen and Packers’ Union and wool selling brokers, presale testing and subsequent delivery of wool to woolbuyers were affected. This had consequential effects on wool exports and the industry’s ability to make sales proceeds available within the nominal payment period.

It became apparent to the industry during the sales held in the week ending 15 February that these influences were causing market dislocation and the executive committee of JWSO decided that all sales should be suspended after 15 February 1980. A complete report was made to the full JWSO later and was accepted without reservation.

Because the decision to suspend sales was made by agreement among all affected parties legal advice was not necessary.

Rundle Shale Oil Project (Question No. 2789)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 13 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs say on 29 April 1980 when discussing the proposed Rundle shale oil project in Queensland that: ‘When the first phase of the Rundle project is combined with other committed development, 7,000 additional jobs in construction alone will be created in Gladstone during the first half of the 1 980s ‘.
  2. Has either the Minister or the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs received the feasibility study from the Rundle shale oil venture partners; if so, are the employment estimates for the first stage based on that feasibility study.
  3. If the Department or the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, or both, have not received the feasibility study from the Rundle shale oil venture partners on what specific information are the estimates of employment based; and if that information is not from the Department’s resources from who has it come and has it been verified by the Department; if so, how and when.
  4. Has the Minister or the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs received advice from either the Queensland Department of Mines or other Queensland departments that the project will be approved prior to the completion of environmental impact statements; if so, when are those statements expected to be received by both the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments.
  5. Has the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs received specific written information from any of the commercial partners in the Rundle shale oil project about the projected employment estimated to be involved in each stage; if so, (a) when was the information received, (b) from whom was it received, and (c) on what date was it received.
  6. Has the information been checked with the Department of National Development and Energy; if so, when.
  7. Did the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs state that 6,000 jobs would be created in the second phase of the project; if so, what specific projects will create the addition 1,000 jobs to make the 7,000 jobs to which the Minister refers at page 2362 of the House of Representatives Hansard dated 29 April 1980.
  8. What is the current level of unemployment in the Gladstone area.
  9. What is the total number of persons registered for unemployment benefits in Queensland.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. The estimates of employment are based on information provided to me from reliable sources connected with the joint venture developing the resources.
  4. No.
  5. No, but see my answer to(3).
  6. No, it was not necessary having regard to my answer to (3).
  7. Yes. The estimate of 7,000 jobs in the period to 1985 is based on a number of developments in the Gladstone area. These include the building of two aluminium smelters and the expansion of a third; expansion of the Gladstone Power Station; a cement clinker works; road, bridge and railway upgrading; the expansion of harbour facilities; community housing and commercial development projects; and the first phase of Rundle.
  8. There are no estimates of unemployment for the Gladstone area. However, at end March 1980, there were 1,147 people registered at the Gladstone Office of the Commonwealth Employment Service who were seeking fulltime work.
  9. At the end of March 1980, in Queensland there were 5 1 ,303 persons in receipt of unemployment benefits.

Major Mining and Manufacturing Projects (Question No. 2790)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 13 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs state that ‘by April last year major mining and manufacturing projects, either firmly committed or close to commitment, were valued at the very sizable sum of $ 12,400m.’ (vide House of Representatives Hansard, page 2361 dated 29 April 1980).
  2. What were those projects and where was each project located or proposed to be located and what was the value of each project.
  3. How many people are to be employed at each project and has the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs verified the number of people employed; if so, on what date were the numbers employed verified.
  4. If the projects listed above have not commenced on what information are the estimates of employment based.
  5. Has the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs independently checked estimates of employment created by proposed new projects; if so, what process was used.
  6. Did the Minister also say, ‘employment directly generated by those major development projects is already estimated to be more than 60,000 jobs by 1985’; if so, on what information was the estimate of 60,000 jobs based.
  7. From what sources was the information derived.
  8. If other than departmental sources were used, has the Department independently verified the information; if so, how.
  9. Do the estimates set out by the Minister coincide with estimates given by the Department of National Development and Energy and Trade and Resources, and are the figures used by the Minister based on the estimates used by either the Department of National Development and Energy or the Department of Trade and Resources.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. to (4) The estimates are based on the survey, Major Manufacturing and Mining Investment Projects, published by the Department of Industry and Commerce. Information about the projects and their estimated employment effects are included in the published material.
  3. No.
  4. Yes; see (2) to (4).
  5. See (2) to (4).
  6. No.
  7. The estimates are broadly consistent when account is taken of the fact that the surveys from which they are derived have differences in coverage and purpose.

Job Creation Statistics (Question No. 2791)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 13 May 1980:

  1. Does the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs collect data regularly about the estimated employment in the various sectors of the economy; if so: (a) what are the sectors for which the information is obtained; (b) from whom is the information obtained; and (c) on what basis is the information supplied if it is not supplied from departmental sources.
  2. What has been the number of new jobs created each month over the 1 8 months to May 1 980 for each category for which the Department collects data.
  3. What was the estimated number of new jobs which the departmental information indicated would be created in each category for which the Department has been collecting data.
  4. Is the information requested in (2) and (3) above collected on a national and /or State basis.
  5. If the information is collected on a State basis, what have been the numbers of new jobs actually created in each State in each category for which the Department collects information.
  6. Have there been any categories in any States in which the total number of jobs available have been estimated to decline and what were the actual results.
  7. Does the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs employ any outside consultants to advise it on the availability of jobs and trends in the labour market; if so, what are the names of the consultants and what is the remuneration paid to each consultant or each consultancy firm.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. to (6) The Department of Employment and Youth Affairs does not undertake regular surveys or data collections from which employment growth in the economy could be estimated.
  2. No.

Overseas Aid: Libya (Question No. 2793)

Senator Rocher:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 May 1980:

Has the Commonwealth Government, any State Government or any Commonwealth or State statutory authority provided aid to Libya at any time during the period May 1970 to May 1980; if so: (a) which Government or authority supplied the aid, ( b) for what purposes was the aid supplied and in what forms; and (c) what was the value of such aid in each year from 1970-71 to 1979-80.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Australia’s official development assistance to foreign countries is provided by the Commonwealth through the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. Their records showed that in 1973 and again in 1976 a Libyan national was awarded an Australian International Award Scheme scholarship to undertake technical training in Australia.

Thus the total Australian aid to Libya for the period 1 970-7 1 to 1 979-80 consisted of two ALAS awards valued at approximately $ 1000 each.

Libyan-Australian Trade (Question No. 2794)

Senator Rocher:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 14 May 1980:

What is the extent and annual value of Libyan-Australian trade, for each year from 1970-71 to 1979-80.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Australian exports to the Libyan Arab Republic over the nine years to 1978-79 has fluctuated from a low of $980,000 in 1972-73 to $ 15.85m in 1978-79.

Australia’s imports from the Libyan Arab Republic since 1 970-7 1 have been zero except for two years where the value was $1,000.

The main components of Australia’s exports in 1978-79 were: manufactures of metals such as hardware items, hand tools and prefabricated buildings ($7.9m) live animals chiefly for food ($4.5m) fruit preserved and fruit preparations ($740,000).

In 1978-79 exports to the Libyan Arab Republic accounted for 0. 1 per cent of Australia ‘s total exports.

Details of Australian trade over the years 1970-71 to 1979-80 are given below.

page 2916

VALUE OF AUSTRALIAN-LIBYAN TRADE

($m, f.o.b.)

Exports of Live Sheep (Question No. 2801)

Senator Primmer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 14 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) Are a large number of lambs and ewes included in the total of 92,000 live sheep to be exported from Portland Victoria.
  2. Did the expoter seek to make an arrangement with the local meat workers to the effect that if he withdrew the 2,000 lambs in the flock the meat workers would allow the shipment to proceed.
  3. Is there a massive pit adjacent to the holding area near Portland filled with dead sheep which have refused to take to hard feed.
  4. Did the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), on Friday 9 May 1980, cull 3,000 sheep from the flock as being unfit to travel; if so, is that the first time the RSPCA has so acted.
  5. What will be the fate of these 3,000 sheep if the RSPCA does not follow up its actions.
  6. What is the average price per head paid to Australian farmers for these animals and do they retail in Middle East countries at between 3 and 5 times their local value.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. To the best of my knowledge, no.
  3. A pit has been dug adjacent to the sheep holding area for disposing of sheep which die in the feed-lot. During periods of fire restriction the dead sheep are sprayed with insecticide and the carcases covered with soil. When fire restrictions are not in force the carcases are burned and covered with soil. There are many causes of death but losses are seldom from refusal to take to hard feed as these animals are culled and given special attention.
  4. The RSPCA did not cull the approximately 3,000 sheep as being unfit to travel. The sheep were culled by the exporters and feed-lot operators as normal practice where sheep are low in condition, suffering from pink-eye, lameness, or some other condition, are drafted off to receive special attention. Culling by the exporters is a continuing procedure throughout the preparation of animals for export.
  5. The sheep referred to in (4) were inspected by the RSPCA and Government Veterinary officers and it was agreed that a high proportion of them were in first class condition and suitable for loading. Inspectors of the Victorian Department of Agriculture subsequently accepted approximately 80 per cent of them for export and they were loaded on the ‘Al Qurain’ on 14 May 1980. The remaining sheep were retained by the exporters for further treatment or fattening and may be presented for export later.
  6. The exporter is reported to have stated that he paid $24 per head for these sheep; returns to individual farmers would no doubt be somewhat below this depending on the distance from the assembly area near Portland and factors such as length of wool. It would be a major exercise to obtain comprehensive data on retail prices in the Middle East market. It is known that meat prices do vary considerably from country to country because of varying consumer subsidies in most of these markets.

Primary Industry: Research and Alleviation of Plagues (Question No. 2809)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 13 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) What involvement does the Government have in both the research and alleviation of plagues, such as the present Mallee mouse plague.
  2. Is there any general involvement such as for plague locusts and in this particular case has help been sought or offered and has any action been taken.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government does not have a direct involvement in the control of mice plagues. However it has a direct research role through the CSIRO. That organisation’s Division of Wildlife Research has a program of research on house mice- the species which sometimes occurs in plague numbers in rural areas. The basic objective of the research is to find out why plagues occur and what factors affect the size of mouse populations. The Commonwealth also financially supports the Wheat Industry Research Council under which two projects concerning the prediction and control of mouse plagues are currently being sponsored.
  2. These is no organisation for the control of mice plagues similar to the Australian Plague Locust Commission. Prime responsibility for the control of pests including mice, rests with the States concerned. It is understood that the Victorian Government is providing advice and services to farmers for the control of mice in the affected areas. I am unaware of any request from the Victorian Government for Commonwealth assistance.

Social Security Officers: Visits to Aboriginal Settlements (Question No. 2812)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 13 May 1980:

  1. On what dates in 1979 and 1980 were visits undertaken by officers of the Department of Social Security to (a) Yuendumu: (b) Willowra: and (c) Numbulwar.
  2. How many age. invalid, widow, supporting parents, sickness, unemployment and special pensions and benefits were paid in each community on (a) 31 December 1979; and (b) 30 April 1980.
  3. Did the Department of Social Security find that 50 per cent of the male population had no income at all as stated by Dr Elspeth Young.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. ) Officers of the Department of Social Security visited Yuendumu on 10-12 May 1979, 23 October 1979, 24-25 January 1980 and 3-4 April 1980. Officers visited Willowra on 25 September 1979 and 1 May 1980. (Records prior to 1 April 1 979 are not available.) Officers visited Numbulwar on 2 1 February 1 980 and 1 1 - 1 3 March 1 980 ( Records prior to1 January 1 980 are not available. )
  2. This information is either not available or is not available in the form requested. However, the following information shows the numbers of pensions and benefits current at certain dates:

No sickness benefits were payable in any of the three communities on the relevant dates. One person at Yuendumu received special benefit.

  1. The Department of Social Security is not aware of the financial circumstances of people in these communities, other than those who are receiving assistance from the Department.

Social Security: Special Benefit (Question No. 2813)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 3 May 1 980:

  1. How many young unemployed persons aged: (a) 14 years; and (b) 15 years, receive special benefit for the latest available date.
  2. ) As the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has said that 14,000 young school leavers were in this category six months after they had left school, what guidelines does the Government use to determine eligibility for special benefit for them.
Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. As at the end of April 1980, there were 62 persons aged 14yearsand 1,443 persons aged fifteen years who were unemployed and in receipt of special benefit.
  2. Under the provisions of the Social Services Act special benefits are payable at the discretion of the Director-General to persons with respect to whom the Director-General is satisfied that by reason of age, physical or mental disability or domestic circumstances or for any other reason, that person is unable to earn a sufficient livelihood for himself and his dependants.

Special benefits for unemployed people under the statutory qualifying age for unemployment benefit are determined by the Director-General or his delegate on their individual merits. However, to qualify for payment the person would normally be expected to have had some reasonable period of full-time employment or in some other way have established financial independence from his parents.

Permanent Heads Committee: Reports from Social Welfare Policy Secretariat (Question No. 2814)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 3 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Permanent Heads Committee, to which the Social Welfare Policy Committee reports, that is, the Secretary of Prime Minister and Cabinet Department, the Secretary of the Finance Department, the Director-General of Health and the Director-General of Social Security, held any meetings solely for the purpose of hearing reports from the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat.
  2. On what dates were the meetings held since the Secretariat began its work.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. ) and (2) I direct the honourable senator’s attention to my answer to question number 2733 dated 23 April 1980 (see Senate Hansard).

Social Security: Special Benefit (Question No. 2815)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 13 May 1980:

How may lone parents under 18 in Victoria have received special benefit in place of State Government payments under the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act 1968 since 1 January 1980.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

As at 21 May 1980 the number of lone mothers under 18 who, because of the Victorian Government ‘s decision not to grant State assistance to lone mothers from 1 January 1980, had been granted and were still receiving special benefit was 218. Information on the total number of grants of special benefit in Victoria to such lone mothers since1 January 1980 is not available.

Social Security: Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 2817)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 13 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many single parents with dependent children are currently in receipt of unemployment benefit.
  2. ) What steps are taken to persuade such recipients that they are financially better off if they receive supporting parents benefit while looking for work.
  3. If this is normally left to the discretion of local offices, will the Minister arrange for letters to be sent to the unemployment beneficiaries so identified pointing out the financial advantages of applying instead for supporting parents benefit.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The survey of unemployment benefit recipients conducted on 22 February 1980 showed that at the time of the survey there were 2,740 single unemployment beneficiaries receiving additional benefit for children.
  2. and (3) Under the provisions of the Social Services Act a person who has applied for and is qualified to receive an unemployment benefit is not qualified to receive a supporting parent’s benefit. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate to invite applications for supporting parent’s benefit from recipients of unemployment benefit. A person who is not qualified for an unemployment benefit or who ceases to be so qualified may be entitled to a supporting parent’s benefit. It should be noted, however, that many single unemployment beneficiaries receiving additional benefit for children would not qualify for widow’s pension or supporting parent’s benefit. This could be, for example, because the applicant was unable to meet the residence qualifications or because the child was not a qualifying’ child ‘.

Youth Accommodation Services Pilot Program (Question No. 2823)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 14 May 1980:

Are projects approved by the Youth Accommodation Services Pilot Program to be funded for a full three years while the evaluation of the project is being conducted; if so, when will the final evaluation reports be made available to the Parliament.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Youth Services Scheme, funded jointly by the Commonwealth and State Governments is a three year pilot Scheme from 1 July 1979-30 June 1982, and is to be evaluated during that period. A Quantum of funds covering a three year commitment has been agreed between the Commonwealth and State Governments, and negotiations are in hand to ensure that these full amounts will be available to the States.

A Commonwealth/State officers Committee has been established to conduct the evaluation. Its report is due at the end of the three year period, and a decision on the release of the report will be made when I and the relevant State Ministers have considered the report.

Appointments to Statutory Authorities under Prime Minister’s Jurisdiction (Question No. 2829)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on15 May 1980:

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 Prime Minister’s jurisdiction.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Staff Appointments (Question No. 2830)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 5 May 1980:

What are the names and employment classifications of all persons who have been appointed to positions in the Second Division and above with the Department ofthe Prime Minister and Cabinet since December 1975 who were not previously public servants.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The following details are provided in relation to persons appointed to positions in the Second Division and above in my Department since December 1975. The information is supplied in relation to appointments to the Second Division under Section 33 and as Permanent Head under Section 54 ofthe Public Service Act and in relation to persons who were not permanent officers ofthe Australian Public Service at the time of their appointment. The employment classification is that to which appointment was effected.

Mahar- Level 2, Second Division. G. E. Rees- Level 2, Second Division. R. G. Hawkins- Level 2, Second Division.

Mr Mahar was appointed from the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies, Mr Rees from the United Kingdom Civil Service and Dr Hawkins from the Reserve Bank.

Importation of New Zealand Butter (Question No. 2831)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 16 May 1980:

Has the New Zealand Dairy Board (NZDB) established a partnership with the Melbourne firm of Ballantynes for the purpose of distributing New Zealand dairy products in Australia; if so, has either the NZDB or Ballantynes indicated that they intend to import New Zealand butter.

Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

To the best of my knowledge no partnership agreement exists between K. L. Ballantyne Pty. Ltd. and the New Zealand Dairy Board (NZDB) for the distribution of New Zealand dairy produce in Australia.

It is understood that an agreement was reached between the Company and the NZDB under which Ballantynes would pack a small quantity of Australian butter, under New Zealand labels, for export on behalf of the Board while the New Zealanders were updating their butter canning equipment.

Some Australian dairy manufacturers and traders, and I understand K. L. Ballantyne Pty Ltd are among them, have reached agreement with the NZDB for the purchase of New Zealand dairy produce for processing or repacking in Australia and subsequent re-export from Australia.

These imports are being strictly monitored by the Australian Dairy Corporation and procedures have been introduced and agreed to by the NZDB which are aimed at ensuring that none of the imported product finds its way onto the Australian domestic market or replaces traditional Australian exports when Australian production is available.

Department of Trade and Resources: Staff Appointments (Question No. 2832)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 16 May 1980:

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 Trade and Resources since 1 975 who were not previously public servants.

Senator Carrick:
LP

-The Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Department of Trade and Resources was created in December 1977. Since then no person has been appointed to a position in the Second Division or above within the Department who was not previously a public servant.

Department of Foreign Affairs: Staff Appointments (Question No. 2838)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 16 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 Foreign Affairs since December 1975 who were not previously Public Servants.

Senator Carrick:
LP

-The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

The following persons who were not previously Public Servants have been appointed to positions in the Second Division and above within my Department since December 1975:

J. Hudson- Second Division- Level 3 Editor of Historical Documents

J. Hocker- Second Division- Level 1 Executive Director Australia- Japan Foundation

In addition O. Harries, Policy Planning Adviser, is temporarily employed, initially for a period of three years, at a level equivalent to Level 3 in the Second Division. His current appointment expires on 16 April 1981.

Department of Social Security: Staff Appointments (Question No. 2840)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 15 May 1980:

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 Social Security since December 1975 who were not previously public servants.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

There have been no appointments to positions in the Second Division and above within the Department of Social Security since December 197S of persons who were not previously public servants.

However, the following persons who previously held appointments as statutory officers have occupied the posiuons indicated from the dates shown:

Dr S. Sax, Special Adviser and Head of the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat, as from 6 March 1978.

Mrs M. Y. Coleman, Director of the Office of Child Care, Level 3, as from 3 June 1976.

Mr P. F. Gross, Special Adviser, Level 3, Social Welfare Policy Secretariat as from 6 March 1 978.

Department of Productivity: Staff Appointments (Question No. 2848)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 15 May 1980:

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 Productivity since December 1975 who were not previously public servants.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The Department of Productivity was established in November 1976. Since then there has been one appointment of a person not previously a public servant viz:

R. Williams- First Assistant Secretary Policy and Research Division Level 3.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Staff Appointments (Question No. 2850)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 16 May 1980:

What are the names and employment classifications of all persons who have been appointed positions in the Second Division and above within the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs since December 1975 who were not previously public servants.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No person who was not already a public servant has been appointed to a position in or above the Second Division in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs since December 1975.

Department of Education: Staff Appointments (Question No. 2851)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 15 May 1980:

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 Education since December 1975 who were not previously public servants.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

No permanent appointments of people who were not previously public servants have been made to positions in the Second Division and above within the Department of Education since December 1975.

Three people have been temporarily employed since that time with salary at Assistant Secretary, Level 1, Second Division. They are:

Miss Joan Fry, who has been employed as a specialist in early childhood education since I July 1976.

Mr Stephen Albert, who was appointed Chairman of the National Aboriginal Education Committee for a three period from 30 March 1977. This appointment was later extended for one month.

Mr John Budby who succeeded Mr Albert as Chairman of the National Aboriginal Education Committee on 28 April 1980. Mr Budby has also been appointed for a three year period.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Staff Appointments (Question No. 2856)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 16 May 1980:

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 Aboriginal Affairs since December 1975 who were not previously public servants.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

No such officers have been appointed in my Department.

Department of the Special Trade Representative: Staff Appointments (Question No. 2857)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister for Special Trade Representations, upon notice, on 16 May 1980:

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 the Special Trade Representative since December 1975 who were not previously public servants.

Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

There have been no appointments of Second Division Officers and above to the Department of the Special Trade Representative from outside the public service since the inception of the Department in 1977.

Department of Trade and Resources: Appointments to Statutory Authorities (Question No. 2859)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 16 May 1980:

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 Trade and Resources.

Senator Carrick:
LP

-The Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I refer the honourable senator to the information in the following attachments.

Department of Foreign Affairs: Appointments to Statutory Authorities (Question No. 2865)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 16 May 1980:

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 Foreign Affairs.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

There is only one statutory authority under my jurisdiction- the Australia-Japan Foundation. The names and dates of appointment of members of the Foundation are:

Chairman-R. T. Madigan, O.B.E., June 1976. Deputy Chairman- S. B. Myer, November 1976. Member- Dr E. S. Crawcour, June 1 976. Member-Prof. Sir John Crawford, A.C., C.B.E., June 1976.

Member-Prof. O. Harries, June 1976. Member- M. Moon, June 1976. Member-P. Nolan, July 1976. Member-K. C. O. Shann, C.B.E., April 1 977. Member-P. W. Thomson, C.B.E., December 1976. Member-A. R. Parsons, May 1978. Member- Ms I. Buttrose, February 1979. Member-D. B. Horgan, October 1979. Member-H. Gordon, October 1979. Member-M. Edgley, October 1979.

Members have been appointed to the Foundation for five years. They are eligible for reappointment.

Members of the Foundation are not paid salaries. They receive travelling allowance ($55 per day for non-public servants, $53 per day for public servants) and sitting fees for attendance at meetings of the Foundation. For meetings of less than three hours the Chairman receives $45, other members $36. For longer meetings these amounts are increased to $90 and $72 respectively.

Department of Employment and Youth Affairs: Appointments to Statutory Authorities (Question No. 2867)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 1 5 May 1980:

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 Employment and Youth Affairs.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has no such boards and commissions under his jurisdiction.

Department of Defence: Appointments to Statutory Authorities (Question No. 2870)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 May 1980:

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 Defence.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The information sort by the honourable senator is contained in the following table.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Appointments to Statutory Authorities (Question No. 2877)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on16 May1980:

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 Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The only statutory authority which might come within the scope of the question is the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs.

The names, dates and terms of appointment and fee as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal of all persons appointed to the Council of the Institute, in pursuance of sub-section 20 (2) of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Act 1979 are as follows:

Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Appointments to Statutory Authorities (Question No. 2883)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 16 May 1980:

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 Aboriginal Affairs.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Department of Social Security: Queensland Staff (Question No. 2894)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 May1980: bring the establishment of theDepartment of Social Security up to full entitlement of staff, in view of the amount of work which has to be transacted.

  1. What number of man-hours of overtime has been worked in the Department of Social Security in Queensland during the period 1 October 1979 to 30 April 1 980.
  2. What manpower resources are likely to be made available to the Queensland branch of theDepartment of Social Security in the year 1 980-8 1 .
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. ) I am advised that according to available staffing and workload information, there is sufficient staff within the Queensland Administration of the Department of Social Security to process the available work.
  2. 20,678 hours.
  3. The distribution of the Department’s staff resources is under constant review to ensure that varying levels of workload are adequately provided for. In the light of the response to part ( 1 ) of this question, however, it is unlikely that any major variation of staff numbers in Queensland will be required in 1980-81.

Invalid Pensioners: Rehabilitation Training (Question No. 2899)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many invalid pensioners underwent rehabilitation training in rehabilitation centres operated by the Department of Social Security in 1978-79.
  2. How many invalid pensioners were offered such training but did not take advantage of it.
  3. Is there any waiting list for invalid pensioners who wish to be accepted for such training but cannot immediately be taken by the Department.
  4. What are the comparable figures for compensation victims under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1 97 1 .
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) 85 1 invalid pensioners were accepted for treatment and training in rehabilitation centres operated by the Department of Social Security in 1 978-79.
  2. No records are kept of the number of invalid pensioners who were proposed for acceptance for treatment and training but who declined the offer.
  3. The Department does not maintain waiting lists for admission to its rehabilitation centres which indicate the benefit/pension category of the persons concerned. As at 30 June 1 979, 480 persons were awaiting admission. These are mostly mildly retarded and socially retarded people. Only a certain number of these people are to be absorbed into any centre at any one time.
  4. ( 1 ) 18 persons who were in receipt of payments under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971, were accepted for treatment and training in 1978-79. (2) No such records are kept. (3) This category is not maintained separately.

Employment of Paraplegic and Quadriplegic Staff (Question No. 2903)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 May 1980:

How many paraplegics and quadriplegics are employed in (a) the Head Office; and (b) State offices of theDepartment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. One.
  2. There are no State offices as such of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Social Security: ‘Entitlement Review’ (Question No. 2947)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 May 1 980:

Who are the ‘certain designated officer’ referred to in the Minister’s answer to Question No. 2588 (Senate Hansard, 1 6 April 1980, page 1542).

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The designated officers in Section 141 of the Social Services Act are the Director-General, a Deputy DirectorGeneral, an Assistant Director-General, a Director or a Registrar.

Invalid Pensioners: Reviews (Question No. 2951)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 May 1980:

How many reviews of invalid pensioners paid overseas through Geneva were carried out in: (a) 1977; (b) 1978; and (c) 1 979, in each country where invalid pensioners reside.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

A general review program covering pensioners residing overseas including those paid through Geneva was in operation until 1 974-75. Subsequently, during the period 1975 to October 1979, special reviews (as appropriate to particular cases and/or countries or residence) covered the majority of pensioners. In October 1979 a comprehensive review program was commenced to cover all pensioners in all countries within 12 months.

The number of reviews of invalid pensioners paid overseas through Geneva carried out in 1978 and 1979 are not available. However, the numbers of invalid pensioners residing overseas in the various countries are listed in the Annual Reports of 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 under the table titled Pensions and Benefits paid Overseas’. I refer you to pages 87, 74 and 106 of these reports respectively.

Social Security Prosecution: Mr Anthony Waters (Question No. 2952)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 23 May 1980:

What was the cost of prosecuting Mr Anthony Waters for allegedly defrauding the Department of Social Security.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The administrative costs to the Department of Social Security associated with the processing of pension and benefit claims and of carrying out investigations for prosecution purposes are not available on an individual basis.

A direct cost of $5.50 was incurred in connection with the prosecution of Mr Waters.

Age Pension Leaflet (Question No. 2954)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 May 1 980:

If the age pension leaflet incorporating the November 1979 rate increases became available for public distribution in Brisbane on 20 February 1980, (vide, Senate Hansard, 20 May 1980, page 2545), why was Senator Colston notable to obtain a leaflet prior to 20 March 1 980 from the Office of the Department of Social Security in Brisbane.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

I am advised that the Age Pension leaflet incorporating the November 1979 rate increases was available in Brisbane on 20 February 1980. I am not able to explain the reason why the honourable senator was unable to obtain a copy.

Industrial Disputes

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 18 October 1979 (Hansard, page 1468), Senator Lewis asked a question without notice concerning the cost to the nation of strikes such as the New South Wales Railways strike.

The Minister for Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Clearly, strikes and other forms of industrial action involve economic costs to the nation through loss of production, wages, business confidence etc. These costs may not be restricted to the establishment subject of industrial action and, because of the inter-dependence of industry, may extend to other establishments and industries. The particular strikes to which you have referred involve the transport industry, upon which many other industries, and the community generally, are dependant for normal operation. Given the size of the operations directly involved and the nature of the dependency of other industries, the cost of these disputes would be widespread and obviously significant.

However, aside from such general observations about the likely cost of the disputes, I am informed it has not been possible to accurately identify the detailed effects of those disputes nor, as a consequence, to collect reliable information about their cost.

There are a number of difficulties involved in attempting to estimate or quantify the economic cost of industrial disputation and it may be helpful if I detail some of the major problems in this area.

Firstly, the only official data regularly published on the cost of disputes are the monthly, quarterly and annual estimates prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) of the wages lost by workers directly and indirectly involved in disputes at the establishments where stoppages occurred. This information, therefore, provides only a very partial estimate of the total cost of industrial disputation. It relates only to wages lost rather than to production, sales or revenue lost and even then, excludes the loss of wages in those establishments affected by disputes, but not directly involved in disputation.

There are a number of statistical difficulties involved when attempting to estimate the total economic cost of a dispute. In particular, there are the conceptual problems involved in measuring the net loss of production, sales or revenue to individual employers resulting from disputes. This is because, in many instances, the loss may be partially recouped at a later date by the employer operating his plant at a higher level of utilisation and /or by the working of additional overtime. Similarly, any loss in sales or revenue might also be made up at a later date.

In assessing the overall economic cost, consideration must also be given to the practice of switching purchases to similar or substitute products or to alternative sources of supply.

Of course, in assessing the total economic cost of disputation, consideration must also be given to the impact of the dispute on activity and employment in other industries. For example, a dispute resulting in the curtailment of electricity, petrol or telecommunications can seriously affect activity and employment across a wide range of industry. Another difficulty, therefore, lies in the fact that the measurement of the total economic loss resulting from a dispute presents much greater problems in terms of indentifying where losses have occurred and collecting information about them than does the measurement of the number of disputes and the number of working days lost. The former involves consideration of a far greater number of establishments than the limited number at which actual stoppages of work occured.

You will appreciate the difficulties involved in quantifying the net impact of industrial disputation on Australia ‘s export contracts and trade relations in general. Further, one can only speculate on the extent to which industrial disputation influences decisions in respect of potential foreign investment.

In compiling statistics on industrial disputation, the ABS follows the standards and concepts established by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). These standards have been adopted by most of the statistically advanced western countries.

During recent discussions at the OECD it was agreed that there are serious difficulties in defining and measuring the impact of disputation on other establishments (commonly called ‘secondary idleness’) and that such effects should not be included in official industrial dispute statistics. In particular, the US authorities involved believe that it is not possible to identify such effects because ofthe extent and complexity of the inter-relationships between modern western economies. Of all the OECD countries represented, the United Kingdom was the only one which stated that it was conducting pilot studies on ‘secondary idleness’.

In response to previous queries regarding measurement of the economic cost of disputes, the ABS has advised that while it may be possible to estimate the economic cost of a particular dispute, provided adequate data is available, it is extremely doubtful, for the reasons I have outlined, whether this could be done on a comprehensive or continuing basis. The Bureau further noted that the resources required would be substantial.

Notwithstanding these significant difficulties, there are strong reasons why the Government and the community should have at that their disposal comprehensive data on the extent and costs of industrial disputes. An InterDepartmental Committee, comprising the Department of Industrial Relations, Treasury and the ABS is currently examining the feasibility of upgrading and extending the present statistical coverage of industrial disputes and, in particular, the economic costs of those disputes. The possibility of underaking pilot studies to ascertain the feasibility of compiling statistics of ‘secondary idleness’ for a limited range of stoppages, such as those involving energy supply, telecommunication or commuter-transport employees, or specific stoppages is, for example, one of the measures which the IDC will be examining.

The Government has a continuing concern with the heavy costs- both direct and indirect- of industrial disputation. In successive National Wage Hearings, the Government has submitted information on the level and general impact of industrial disputation. In particular, in the November 1978, May 1979 and November 1979 National Wage Hearings, the Commonwealth provided the Commission with information on a range of particular disputes to illustrate the broader economic costs involved. Indeed, on each occasion, the Commission itself commented on the seriousness of these overall costs. I refer you to pages 20 to 26 of the Commonwealth’s November 1978 submission, pages 53 to 64 of the May 1979 submission and pages 129 to 142 of the November 1979 submission.

Liberal Party Dispute in New South Wales

Senator Durack:
LP

– In response to a question without notice directed to me by Senator Cavanagh on 6 November 1979 (Ilansard, page 1866), I undertook to inform him of any action I proposed to take arising out of an investigation I had initiated into a statement made by Mr James Twaddell that he had taped a telephone conversation he had with Dr Solomon.

In line with the undertaking I gave on that occasion I advise that the investigation failed to disclose evidence of any breach of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960. Accordingly no further action will be taken.

Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 7 November 1979 (Hansard, page 1 963) Senator Chipp asked me a question without notice concerning the fact that no members of the former Narcotics Bureau were seconded to assist the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs headed by Mr Justice Williams. The matter was not within my ministerial responsibility but I undertook to provide an answer to Senator Chipp ‘s question after making inquiries into the matter.

I am now informed that officers from several Commonwealth Departments were seconded to the Commission when it was established. Secondments to the more senior positions were personally approved by the Commissioner, Mr Justice Williams.

In November 1977, shortly after the Commission’s establishment, the Secretary, Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, offered to make available two officers of the Narcotics

Bureau to be part of a full-time support group for the Commission. The Commissioner, to whom this offer was referred, subsequently indicated that he did not have any immediate requirement for the two officers but would pursue the matter of secondments as soon as the need arose. The Commissioner did not, in the event, seek to proceed with the proposed secondments.

I am finally informed that, up to the time the Narcotics Bureau was disbanded, its services were regularly made use of by the Commission on matters connected with the alleged illegal importation of drugs.

Parliamentary Triangle

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 6 March 1980 (Hansard, page 615) Senator Young asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning proposals for works within the parliamentary zone. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The terms of reference of the Joint Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House provide that it may consider and report on such matters as may be referred to it either by the Minister (for the Capital Territory) or by resolution of either House of the Parliament. Having regard to the minor nature of the works they were not referred to the Committee by the Minister; nor did any senator or member move for their referral.

The practice has been to give each House prior notice of proposals before a motion for approval of them is moved. This procedure provides all senators and members with an opportunity to scrutinise the proposals and, if they wish, to move for their referral to the Committee if the Committee has not already considered them.

Wheat: Industrial Disputes

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 6 March 1980 (Hansard, page 610) Senator Thomas asked me a question without notice concerning the effects of industrial disruption on the wheat industry.

The Minister for Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Government is extremely conscious of the gravity of the present level of disputation. Indeed, the extent of current disputation is jeopardising the very foundation of the emerging recovery in economic activity and employment.

However, as you are probably aware, there are difficulties involved in attempting to estimate or quantify the economic cost of industrial disputation. Firstly, the only official data regularly published on the cost of disputes are the monthly estimates prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) of wages lost by workers directly and indirectly involved in disputes at the establishments where stoppages occurred. This information, therefore, provides only a very partial estimate of the total cost of industrial disputation. It relates only to wages lost rather than production and even then, excludes the loss of wages in those establishments affected by disputes, but not directly involved in disputation.

There are a number of statistical difficulties involved when attempting to estimate the total economic cost of a dispute and it may be helpful to outline some of them. In particular, there are the conceptual problems involved in measuring the net loss of production or sales to individual employers resulting from disputes. This is because, in many instances, the loss may be partially recouped at a later date by the employer operating his plant at a higher level of utilisation and/or by the working of additional overtime. Similarly, any loss in sales can also be made up at a later date.

In assessing the overall economic cost, consideration must also be given to the practice of switching purchases to similar or substitute products or to alternative sources of supply.

Of course, in assessing the total economic cost of disputation, consideration must also be given to the impact of the dispute on activity and employment in other industries. For example, a dispute resulting in the curtailment of electricity, petrol or telecommunications can seriously affect activity and employment across a wide range of industry. Similarly a dispute in a particular area of manufacturing will affect those industries supplying it with raw materials or other inputs as well as those industries whose activities depend on supplies from the dispute affected industry. In short, because of the complex interrelated nature of the economic system, many disputes can have serious multiplicative effects throughout the economy.

Another difficulty, therefore, lies in the fact that in order to estimate the total economic loss flowing from a dispute it may be necessary to aggregate estimates provided by thousands of employers, in the case, say, of a power or petrol dispute, whereas the measurement of the number of diputes and working days lost entails estimates from a much more limited number of establishments at which the actual stoppages of work occurred.

You will also appreciate the difficulties involved in quantifying the net impact of industrial disputation on Australia’s export contracts and trade relations in general. Further, one can only speculate on the extent to which industrial disputation influences decisions in respect of potential foreign investment.

Notwithstanding these problems, in response to a number of queries in recent years concerning the possibility of estimating the economic cost of disputes, my Department has examined the matter in consultation with the ABS. The Bureau has advised that while it may be possible to estimate the economic cost of a particular dispute, provided adequate data is available, it is extremely doubtful, for the reasons I have outlined, whether this could be done on a comprehensive or continuing basis. The Bureau further noted that the resources required would be substantial.

It should also be pointed out that in compiling statistics on industrial disputation the Bureau follows the standards and concepts established by the International Labour Office (ILO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). These standards have been adopted by most of the statistically advanced Western countries.

You might also be interested to know that in recent discussions at the OECD it was agreed that there are serious difficulties in defining and measuring the impact of disputation on other establishments (commonly called ‘secondary idleness’) and that such effects should not be included on official industrial dispute statistics.

In particular, the United States authorities involved believed that it was not possible to identify such effects because of the extent and complexity of the interrelationships between industries in modern Western economies. Of all the OECD countries represented, the United Kingdom was the only one which stated that it was conducting pilot studies on secondary idleness’.

Nonetheless, the ABS has indicated that when resources are available, it may be able to undertake pilot studies to ascertain whether the compilation of statistics of ‘secondary idleness’ for a limited range of stoppages, such as those involving energy supply, telecommunication or commutertransport employees, is feasible. However, at present, the only information available on the cost of disputes are the unofficial estimates made occasionally by employers or their organisations.

In successive national wage hearings the Government has submitted information on the level and impact of industrial disputation. In particular, in the November 1979 National Wage hearing, the Commonwealth provided the Commission with detailed information on a range of particular disputes to illustrate the broader economic costs involved.

In recent times the Government has placed considerable emphasis on publicising the economic impact of disputation, not only in respect to the prospects for economic recovery and the creation of employment opportunities, but also in terms of the inconvenience caused to the general public.

Australian Wool Symbol

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 18 March 1980 (Hansard, page 713) Senator Thomas directed a question without notice to me in my capacity as acting Leader of the Government in the Senate concerning the launching of an Australian wool symbol.

The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following information:

  1. 1 ) The Australian symbol launched by the Wool Textile Manufacturers of Australia (WTMA) does have the support of the Australian Wool Corporation. The Corporation has worked closely with the WTMA in developing a symbol to identify Australian wool products. The symbol was, in fact, devised by the Corporation and made available to the WTMA subject to agreed conditions.
  2. By agreement, the WTMA has the responsibility for ensuring that products carrying this symbol are produced in Australia from Australian wool.
  3. With one or two exceptions only, all products bearing the new WTMA symbol will also carry the Woolmark or Woolblendmark symbol as appropriate. A joint swing ticket bearing both symbols is to be used where all relevant requirements have been met. The Wool Corporation will continue to be responsible for ensuring appropriate quality control standards for the Woolmark and Woolblendmark symbols.
  4. There is no conflict with the established policies of the Wool Corporation and International Wool Secretariat for products bearing the new symbol marketed in Australia. Cooperation between the Corporation and WTMA has ensured complete harmony between the trade and consumer campaign involving the new symbol, and Corporation promotional activities. The International Wool Secretariat (IWS) has no responsibility for promotion of wool products within Australia.

IWS international promotion policy would preclude it from lending support for the WTMA symbol in export markets. The WTMA has been fully informed of this.

Ministry: Income Tax Returns

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 19 March (Hansard, pages 774-5) Senator Walsh asked Senator

Durack, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning Ministers’ income tax returns.

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

Action to ensure that companies comply with the requirements of the taxation laws is a matter for the Commissioner of Taxation. I have no doubt that he pursues his responsibilities rigorously in all cases.

Arbitration Act: Appointments

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 19 March 1980 (Hansard, page 775) Senator Gietzelt asked me the following question, without notice:

Can the Attorney-General indicate what qualifications are required for appointment as an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act 1 902? What criminal convictions would debar a person from being appointed pursuant to this Act? Can an undischarged bankrupt be appointed an arbitrator under the Act? Does the Registrar of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court keep a register of all arbitrators and consultants so appointed under the Act?

The following is in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Arbitration Act 1 902 of New South Wales in its application to the Australian Capital Territory does not prescribe qualifications for the appointment of arbitrators nor matters debarring a person from such appointment. The choice of an arbitrator is generally left by the Act to the parties to the arbitration.

The Registrar of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court does not keep a register of arbitrators and consultants appointed under the Act. The keeping of such a register was recommended by the Law Reform Commission of the Australian Capital Territory, but that proposal has not received support from the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, which is preparing uniform legislation on commercial arbitration.

Marihuana

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 25 March 1980 (Hansard, page 943) Senator Young asked the Attorney-General, without notice:

I ask the Attorney-General whether he is aware that marihuana plants with a street value of some millions of dollars were found by police in South Australia last week. This is only one of many such finds in Australia this year, besides what has been found and confiscated in previous years. Will the Government take steps to increase greatly the penalties for growers of marihuana by confiscating all their property or the property on which the plant is grown and deporting those growers or property owners who are not naturalised Australians? At present the light fines and penalties are regarded as a joke when compared with the huge profits to be made from growing marihuana.

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

The level and type of penalty to be imposed on persons who illegally grow or sell marihuana in Australia are primarily matters for the State Governments. The deportation of non-Australians convicted of criminal offences against the State or Commonwealth laws is, however, governed by the Migration Act 1958. That Act renders liable to deportation immigrants who, within 5 years of entering Australia, commit an offence punishable by imprisonment for 1 year or longer. In addition, non-Australians, other than British or Irish citizens, sentenced to imprisonment for one year or longer are also liable to deportation under the Act. On 3 1 January 1980 the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs released a statement of the Government’s policy relating to the deportation of persons convicted of criminal offences. I refer the honourable Senator to paragraphs ( 8 ) to (13) inclusive of that statement in which is set out the Government’s policy with respect to the deportation of drug offenders. As the honourable Senator will be aware, the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs has recommended that the Migration Act 1 958 be amended to do away with the distinction for the purposes of liability to deportation, between British and Irish citizens and other persons who are not Australian citizens and to delete the provision in the Act protecting a migrant of British or Irish nationality from deportation where the migrant has resided in Australia for 5 years before the commission of an offence which would otherwise render him liable to deportation. The Government is currently considering the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

Scheduling of Qantas Flights

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 25 March 1980 (Hansard, page 944) Senator Rae asked me a question, without notice, concerning Qantas’ services to Australian cities and the application by Ansett Airlines of Australia to start an international air service between Townsville and Singapore.

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

One of the basic aims of the Government’s international aviation policy is to ensure as far as possible that an adequate level of service is provided to each of Australia ‘s current international gateway ports.

It must be recognised that Australia is a relatively small market and that its centres of population are widely dispersed over a large geographic area.

Therefore, unless all of the international airlines are allowed to link the points they serve in Australia, the frequency of services to these points would drop significantly.

The Government will continue to encourage the development of direct services linking Australian cities with overseas countries, but we recognise that it will be some time in the future before there will be sufficient passenger demand to enable the airlines to operate commercially viable direct services to all of Australia ‘s international airports.

The Government will also continue to encourage initiatives by the domestic airlines to improve connections with international services.

The Government recently reaffirmed the policy that Qantas be the sole Australian operator of international air services at least until 1 98 1 .

There are a number of important issues that would need to be considered by the Government before significant changes to existing policy could be contemplated.

As well as the question of whether Qantas should remain as Australia’s sole international airline, the Government would have to examine such issues as whether international air services should be provided to new gateways; the question of the provision of supporting facilities and other related matters.

Consultations with overseas governments which had an interest in the matter would also be required.

It is essential that no action be taken that might prejudice the low fare arrangements we have successfully negotiated with most of our bilateral air service partners.

Dam Busters Reunion

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 27 March 1980 (Hansard, page 1079) Senator Young asked me a question, without notice, concerning Customs duty on goods imported by members of 617 Dambusters Squadron.

On 15 April 1980 (Hansard, page 1436) Senator Young asked a further question, without notice, on this subject.

The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

As Minister responsible for Customs I have to advise that all goods imported into Australia are subject to duty and sales tax at prescribed rates. There is no exemption because they are privately imported and are not for resale.

Similar goods imported by ex-servicemen’s and other organisations must receive the same treatment and in fairness no exceptions can be made.

I have found the tariff classifications and duty calculations are correct. I regret there are no legal means whereby I can waive or reduce the amount of duty.

Demonstration at Fitzroy

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 31 March 1980 (Hansard, pages 1189 and 1191) Senators O ‘Byrne and Grimes asked me, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, questions, without notice, concerning the demonstration at the opening of the Harold McCracken Nursing Home, Fitzroy, on 30 March 1980. The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senators’ questions:

The facts are that:

of the total cost of approximately $1m of the Harold McCracken Nursing Home, the Commonwealth Government contributed $652,000.

the Harold McCracken Nursing Home is the first such home to be opened in Fitzroy, an area very much in need of such homes.

the Fitzroy Council passed a motion moved by Cr. Kevin Healy expressing concern that the Prime Minister had been invited to open the Harold McCracken Nursing Home in Fitzroy.

Cr. Healy is employed as an Assistant by the Honourable Member for Melbourne, Mr U. E. Innes, M.P., and is paid by the Commonwealth.

Cr. Healy said that a huge demonstration was expected and that he could not guarantee a peaceful demonstration. (0 unsolicited advice that a demonstration was planned was passed to TheDepartment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and, in accordance with the normal procedures, by thatDepartment to the Protective Services Co-ordination Centre which in turn spoke with the Australian Federal Police and the Victoria Police.

the Victoria Police is responsible, within Victoria, for protecting VIPs, including the Prime Minister, and for taking measures they deem to be necessary to ensure protection and to maintain law and order.

the violent actions by demonstrators who hurled missiles and put at risk the life and well-being of frail and dependent aged people in care at the nursing home, show that measures taken by the Victorian Police were fully justified.

the demonstration was organised by the Medibank Action Coalition and Gay Liberation Movement and attended by other organisations including the Unemployed Workers Union, the Work For Today Coalition, the Friends of the Earth, the Movement Against Uranium Mining, the Australia Independence Movement, the Socialist Workers Party, the Spartacist League of Australia and New Zealand, the International Socialists and the Communist Party of Australia.

There is an implication in the honourable senators ‘ questions that the violent demonstration came as a surprise to the questioners and their party. Such an implication is clearly unwarranted as shown by:

the local member, the Honourable Member for Melbourne, Mr U. E. Innes, M.P., local State Members, and the Mayor of Fitzroy had announced by 19 March that they would boycott the opening;

the self-evident association between the Fitzroy Council, Councillor Healy and the Honourable Member for Melbourne;

the statements about the demonstration made by Councillor Healy well in advance of the opening; and

the list of organisations which arranged and participated in the demonstration.

Indeed, the nature of the honourable senators’ questions, and of questions asked in another place, suggests that the Australian Labor Party and its political allies, or some members of these bodies, are attempting to establish conditions that would prevent me appearing wherever and whenever they threaten to organise a demonstration. If this is the intention, then the people of Australia will quickly recognise it for what it is- an attempt to deny the right of free speech by the threat and the practice of violence.

Concessional Pharmaceutical Benefit

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– On 31 March 1980 (Hansard, page 1183), Senator Bonner asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the possible introduction of a concessional pharmaceutical benefit for disadvantaged persons.

The Minister for Health has provided the following information:

The Government has sympathy for those people in the community who are disadvantaged and regularly looks for ways by which the disadvantaged may be assisted. All aspects of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme including the one referred to are constantly being examined and monitored.

Defence: South- West Victorian Coastline

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 2 April 1980 (Hansard, page 1327) Senator Primmer asked me a question without notice in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Defence in the Senate. The question concerned the alleged sighting of a Russian submarine in Lady Bay, Warrnambool.

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

The Minister for Defence is unable to confirm that a Russian submarine was sighted in Lady Bay at Warrnambool on the morning of 1 April 1980. Royal Australian Naval authorities have not received any reports of such a sighting nor was it reported by local coastwatchers

The Minister has advised that submarine operations in the area would be highly unlikely since the depth of water in Lady Bay is three fathoms and the twenty fathom line lies some two nautical miles offshore.

The Minister was reminded of the broadcast made by Orson Welles on the morning of 1 April many years ago that men from Mars had landed in New York.

Employment of School Leaver

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 16 April 1980 (Hansard, page 1471) Senator Cavanagh asked me a question without notice in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs in the Senate. The question concerned an article which appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser about the ineligibility of Miss Yvonne Keynes to be employed under the Special Youth Employment Training Program.

The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Miss Keynes first registered with the Elizabeth Office of the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) on 17 September 1979. This year she elected to go back to school whilst continuing to look for work. Miss Keynes has been interviewed at the CES at approximately 4 weekly intervals. It is true that Miss Keynes is ineligible for assistance under the Special Youth Employment Training Program (SYETP) as she is a full-time student.

The aim of SYETP is to assist unemployed young people who are unable to compete on the open labour market because they lack required experience and employment qualifications and/or personal qualities. The program is therefore only directed at those who are unable to meet employers’ normal requirements for recruitment to a position. The overall purpose of the program is to remedy these disadvantages by providing the trainees with the basis for entry to continued employment and to equip them with basic skills which are readily transferable and acceptable to the employers.

Experience has shown that the great majority of school leavers and those seeking their first full-time job are able to find employment shortly after leaving school. The purpose of the qualifying period under SYETP is to identify those who are in need of special assistance. If SYETP were made generally available to all school leavers and those returning to school there would be no incentive for employers to take on disadvantaged young people whom they would not otherwise select.

Finally, the article in the Adelaide Advertiser of 15 April 1 980 is misleading in one particular in that it suggests that government regulations had somehow prevented the firm employing Miss Keynes. It should be pointed out that the firm is free to employ anyone they select, but in order to receive a SYETP subsidy they must be prepared to take on and train someone eligible for assistance under the Program who is referred by the CES.

Exports of Wool to Soviet Union

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On three occasions ( 16 and 17 April and 1 May 1980, Hansard, pages 1468, 1550-2 and 2016-7), Senator Wriedt has asked me questions without notice concerning sales of wool to the Soviet Union. I undertook to refer the questions to the Prime Minister, who has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I have noted the consuming interest taken by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate in respect of marketing of wool which seems to override in his mind, and in the minds of members of the Opposition, the question of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Australia’s actions in respect of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan are consistent with the thrust of the UN resolution and the actions of like-minded countries which abhor the Soviet Union’s infringement of Afghanistan’s sovereignty. I look to the Opposition to give full support to the Government’s stand in this matter, not carping criticism.

Domestic Air Fares Inquiry

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 17 April 1980 (Hansard, page 1547) Senator Townley asked me a question without notice concerning the domestic air fares inquiry.

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

The inquiry announced on 20 March 1 980 is to examine the structure of air fares affecting all parts of Australia.

The Government is firmly of the view that persons undertaking the Inquiry should be selected on the basis of ability and not on the basis of any special interest, whether this is in relation to a particular locality, or in a particular issue or airline.

The membership of the Inquiry is currently under consideration. It could be expected that all interested parties will be given an opportunity to make submissions to the Inquiry.

Manpower Programs

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 21 April 1980 (Hansard, page 1587) Senator Davidson directed a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. The question concerned an article in the Australian Financial Review which asserted that the rules relating to administration of the Special Youth Employment Training Program had been relaxed to avoid under-expenditure on the program.

The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

There has been no official or unofficial relaxation of the guidelines in relation to the Special Youth Employment Training Program, the aim of which is to provide training opportunities for those disadvantaged young people who have been unemployed for four out of the previous twelve months.

Opening of High Court Building

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 1 May 1980 (Hansard, page 2019) Senator Gietzelt asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning the opening of the High Court building. The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

It is normal for the organisers of occasions at which Her Majesty The Queen is to be present to make the arrangements and issue the invitations. It is normal for the Government to be kept informed of proposed arrangements.

It is not general practice for the Governor-General to attend public functions at which the Sovereign is present.

Fraser Ministry: Shares in Rundle Project

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 21 May 1980 (Hansard, page 2551) Senator Wriedt asked me a question without notice concerning Ministers’ pecuniary interests. I undertook to refer the honourable senator’s question to the Prime Minister, who has provided the following answer:

All Ministers have made declarations of pecuniary interests in accordance with the arrangements referred to by the Deputy Prime Minister in his statement of 22 November 1979 (Hansard, pages 3374-8) on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest.

Broadcasting and Television Act: Breaches

Senator DURACK:
LP

-During the last two weeks of the autumn session I was asked a series of questions without notice by Opposition senators concerning the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and correspondence to me from Sir Reginald Ansett, Sir Peter Abeles and solicitors for Mr. Ihlein

On 21 May 1980 I answered these questions by informing Senator Wriedt as follows:

I answered today in the Senate the question from Senator Ryan about advice given to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and a question from Senator Button.

In relation to other questions, I attach a copy of a letter sent today to the Leader of the Opposition by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Attachment 1). I shall deal below with the other questions only to the extent to which they are not answered by the Minister’s letter and its attachments.

On 14 December 1979, a Mr Graham Richard Ihlein, through his solicitors, Messrs Lethlean, Howie and Maher, wrote to me and asked for my consent to institute proceedings against News Limited and Cruden Investments Pty Ltd for alleged breaches of section 92 ( 1 ) (a) of the Broadcasting and Television Act. Senator Evans asked what action I took as a result of receiving that letter and, in particular, whether in the light of that letter and the original letter I received from Sir Reginald Ansett, I instructed the Commonwealth Police or the Deputy Crown Solicitor to investigate the alleged breaches that were brought to my attention. Senator Evans asked why, if I did not issue such instructions, 1 did not do so. 1 did not instruct the Commonwealth Police or the Deputy Crown Solicitor to investigate the alleged breaches.

With respect to the Ihlein letter, the course of events was much as I had recalled them when I answered Senator Evans on 20 May. There has been no further correspondence with the solicitors since the then Acting Crown Solicitor wrote to them on 16 January 1980. I attach copies of the correspondence with the solicitors (Attachment 2).

Upon consideration of the letter from the Minister for Post and Telecommunications dated 26 March 1980 and its attachments, it did not seem appropriate at that stage for any action to be taken by me.

In particular, I refer to the Tribunal ‘s statement, on page 3 of its letter, that the ‘full extent of any contraventions’ had not been established and that there could be a public inquiry into the matter. Since Parliament has established the Tribunal for the purposes of holding such inquiries, including inquiries on the question whether contraventions of the Act have taken place in relation to transactions such as those here in question, it was appropriate for the matter to be investigated in the first instance by the Tribunal.

When the inquiry has been completed in accordance with the Act as construed by the High Court, it will be appropriate for me to consider (in consultation with the Minister for Post and Telecommunications) whether any further action should be taken.

I have given a copy of this letter to each of the senators who has asked me questions about this matter.

ATTACHMENT I

21 May 1980

Dear Mr Hayden,

On 15 May last you asked me a question without notice concerning a letter from Sir Reginald Ansett, Chairman of Ansett Transport Industries Limited, on the purchase of shares by News Limited in Ansett Transport Industries Limited.

I enclose a copy of my reply to your question which I have asked to be included in the Hansard record of the House of Representatives.

Yours sincerely, A. A. STALEY

The Hon. W. G. Hayden, M. P., Leader of the Opposition, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Mr STALEY- On 15 May 1980 Mr Hayden asked me a question without notice regarding a letter said to have been sent to me by Sir Reginald Ansett which drew attention to acquisitions by News Limited of shares in Ansett Transport Industries Limited.

The answer to the honourable member’s question is:

There is no record of such a letter having been received by me. However, on 22 January 1980 my colleague, the Attorney-General, wrote to me enclosing a letter dated 5 December 1979, in which Sir Reginald referred to this matter. Copies of these letters are at Attachment A.

On 19 December 1979 the Attorney-General acknowledged Sir Reginald’s letter, and on 22 January 1980 wrote to Sir Reginald and advised that, as the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 was administered by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, he had referred Sir Reginald’s letter to me for consideration (Attachment B).

I had already asked my Depanment to make inquiries of the Tribunal for advice regarding the share transactions which had taken place and any communications which had been received by the Tribunal from the parties concerned. Subsequently, I received advice from the Tribunal in a letter addressed to my Department dated 20 February 1980. This advice is at Attachment C.

On 6 February 1980 Sir Peter Abeles wrote to me on behalf of Ansett Transport Industries Limited on the same matter, enclosing a copy of his letter to the Attorney-General (Attachment D).

On 26 March I responded to Sir Reginald saying that I had obtained information from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and had considered this carefully. I concluded that, in all the circumstances, I did not propose to take any action under the Broadcasting and Television Act (Attachment E).

On the same day I also wrote to the Attorney-General, enclosing a copy of my letter to Sir Reginald informing him of my belief that, under the circumstances, a prosecution should not be instituted (Attachment F). In forming this view, I had regard to the fact that the Tribunal had given notice of its intention to hold a public inquiry on this matter. I will continue to keep the matter under review and there will be an opportunity to re-assess the position when the Tribunal’s Report is available.

ATTACHMENT A

Attorney-General Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600 22 January 1980

Dear Minister,

I am writing to you in connection with a letter dated S December 1979 that I have received from Sir Reginald Ansett. A copy of the letter is attached.

For the reasons set out in his letter, Sir Reginald Ansett asserts that News Ltd has contravened section 92 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 by reason of certain share acquisitions by that company in Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. He asks that action be taken to investigate the matter and to enforce that provision.

Although the effect of section 92ka of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 is that a prosecution for an offence against the provisions of section 92 may not be instituted except with the consent in writing of the Attorney-General, 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 1942. 1 am accordingly referring Sir Reginald Ansett ‘s letter to you for your consideration.

I am attaching a copy of my reply to Sir Reginald Ansett advising him that the matter raised in his letter has been referred to you.

Yours sincerely, PETER DURACK

The Hon. A. A. Staley, M.P., Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600

ATTACHMENT A (ii)

ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LIMITED

( Incorporated in Victoria )

Registered Office: 489 Swanston Street, Melbourne, Australia

Telephone 345 3144 Telex AA30085. Telegrams and cables ‘ANSETT’ Melbourne, P.O. Box 362F, Melbourne 3001. 5 December 1979

Senator The Hon. P. Durack, AttorneyGeneral, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600

Dear Senator Durack,

You will be aware that this Company through two whollyowned subsidiaries is the owner of two commercial television licences in Melbourne and Brisbane respectively.

You will be aware that News Limited is the owner of a controlling interest in United Telecasters Sydney Limited, the owner and operator of one commercial television licence in Sydney.

We draw your attention to the statement in today’s issue of ‘The Australian’, a newspaper owned by News Limited, that News Limited holds over twenty-five per cent of the shares in this Company.

Such acquisition constitutes a flat contravention of Section 92 of the Broadcasting and Television Act, 1 942.

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

Yours faithfully, R. M. ANSETT, Managing Director

ATTACHMENT B 19 December 1979

Dear Sir Reginald,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 5 December 1 979 concerning a statement in ‘The Australian’ newspaper of 5 December 1979 which indicated that News Limited holds over 25 per cent of the shares in Ansett Transport Industries Limited.

I will write to you again on this matter.

Yours sincerely, PETER DURACK

Sir Reginald Ansett, K.B.E.,

Managing Director,

Ansett Transport Industries Limited,

P.O. Box 362 F,

Melbourne, Victoria 300 1

ATTACHMENT B (ii)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE CANBERRA ACT 2600 22 JAN 1980

Dear Sir Reginald,

I refer to your letter dated 5 December 1979 requesting me to take certain action in relation to an alleged breach by News Ltd of the provisions of section 92 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942.

As the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 is administered by my colleague the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, I have referred your letter to him for his consideration.

Yours sincerely, PETER DURACK

Sir Reginald Ansett, K.B.E., Chairman,

Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, P.O. Box 362F, MELBOURNE, VIC. 3001

ATTACHMENT C

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

153 Walker Street, North Sydney, N.S.W. 2060 P.O.Box 1308 North Sydney 2060 Telex ‘ABTEE’ 26683 Telephone 922 2900 20 February 1980

Mr Robert Lord

First Assistant Secretary

Broadcasting Policy Division

Postal and Telecommunications Department 153 Walker Street

NORTH SYDNEY NSW 2060

Dear Mr Lord,

I refer again to your letter dated 11 January 1980, concerning the purchase by the News Group of Companies (News) of shares in Ansett Transport Industries (Ansett) in relation to the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act (Act) which govern the ownership and control of commercial television stations.

The Tribunal has received several letters from News and a letter from Ansett which have a bearing on the matter. There have been a number of telephone discussions as well.

On 12 December 1979, News Limited advised the Tribunal that the News Group had purchased 43.6% of the share capital of Ansett and was continuing to purchase shares with a view to acquiring up to 50% of the issued ordinary share capital of Ansett. The letter acknowledged that provided the Tribunal approved the sale of News’ interests in NWS Adelaide (since approved), and Ansett disposed of its interests in TVQ Brisbane (negotiations partly completed), the News Group would no longer hold prescribed interests in television stations in excess of those permitted by section 92 ( 1 ) of the Act. The same correspondence said that it was the intention of one or more companies in the News Group to apply to the Tribunal for approval of the acquisition of the Ansett shares, as soon as matters relating to NWS and TVQ were resolved. It was also pointed out that the ultimate holding company of the News Group had become The News Corporation Limited and all companies in the Group would become direct or indirect subsidiaries of that company.

Details of the authorised and issued share capital of News Corporation Limited, News Limited and News Investments Pty Limited, which form part of the News Group of companies, were notified to the Tribunal on 4 January 1980. The News Corporation Limited advised the Tribunal on 25 January 1 980, that News and Ansett were currently seeking a buyer or buyers for TVQ but one factor which had contributed to the delay was that the sale of the John Fairfax Limited interests in station QTQ Brisbane was the subject of concurrent negotiations.

Advice has since been received that QTQ is being purchased by AWA Ltd and that Ampol Petroleum Ltd was acquiring some 60% of the issued share capital of TVQ. In a letter dated 13 February 1980, Sir Peter Abeles, the Joint Chief Executive of Ansett Transport Industries Limited advised the Tribunal that a preliminary agreement had been reached for Ampol Petroleum Ltd to acquire some 60% of the share capital of TVQ and that negotiations were continuing for the sale ofthe balance of the Ansett interests in TVQ.

In the letter from News Limited dated 13 December 1979 a copy of which was forwarded to your Department on 1 5 January 1980, the company acknowledges that its Ansett shareholding transaction caused a contravention of the ownership and control provisions of the Act in that it held at that date a prescribed interest in both TEN Sydney and NWS Adelaide, and automatically acquired through Ansett a prescribed interest in ATV Melbourne and TVQ Brisbane. On the facts available, the Tribunal was aware of this situation. However, it has been the practice over the years for such contraventions to be corrected either through negotiation with the parties concerned or voluntarily by such parties as soon as they realised the situation in which they were placed. There is no record of any prosecutions having been launched in connection with contraventions which have occurred from time to time.

It is the opinion of the Tribunal that continuation of the previous attitude to contraventions is desirable where it is clear, as is the case in regard to the News Group purchase of the Ansett shares, that every attempt is being made to remedy the contravention as soon as possible. On the general question of the institution of court proceedings regarding contraventions, the Tribunal believes that the powers and functions conferred upon it by the Act do not impose any responsibility for it to initiate prosecutions in relation to contravention of the ownership and control provisions. However, the Tribunal accepts that where a contravention exists and the offending party refuses to take corrective action, the Tribunal should hold a public inquiry and, if appropriate, direct the divestment of the excess interests. If such a direction were to be ignored, the Tribunal would report the matter to the Minister with a view to the Commonwealth instituting legal proceedings.

I understand that your letter was written as a direct result of a letter which Sir Reginald Ansett forwarded to the Attorney-General sometime ago.

As you are aware Sir Reginald has since disposed of his personal interest in Ansett Transport Industries to the News Limited Group. The Tribunal has been informed that Sir Reginald does not wish the subject matter of his letter to be pursued and that the Joint Chief Executive Officer of Ansett Transport Industries will be writing to your Department to this effect.

In conclusion, I should mention that although the News Corporation Limited has yet to make a formal application for approval in relation to its purchase of the shares in Ansett and the full extent of any contraventions cannot be established until then, the Tribunal has invited members of the public to furnish submissions on the matter. On receipt of these submissions the Tribunal will determine whether the transactions should be the subject of a public inquiry, pursuant either to section 92 F (4) or section 1 8 ( 1 ) of the Act.

Yours sincerely B. J. CONNOLLY Secretary

ATTACHMENT D

ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LIMITED

(Incorporated in Victoria)

Registered Office: 489 Swanston Street. Melbourne, Australia

Telephone 345 3 144 Telex AA30085. Telegrams and cables ANSETT’ Melbourne, P.O. Box 362F, Melbourne 300 1 6 February 1980

The Hon. A. A. Staley, M.P., Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600

Mr dear Minister,

On 5 December 1979, Sir Reginald Ansett wrote to Senator Durack making certain allegations about News Ltd ‘s acquisition of shares in Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. The Attorney-General finally replied to that letter on 22 January 1 980, indicating that he had referred the matter to you.

For this reason, I enclose a copy of a letter which I have written to the Attorney-General today.

Yours sincerely, E. H. P. ABELES Joint Chief Executive 6 February 1980

Senator the Hon. P. Durack, AttorneyGeneral, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600

Dear Senator Durack,

I refer to a letter addressed to you from Sir Reginald Ansett dated 5 December 1979, and to your replies to it dated 19 December 1979, and 22 January 1980.

I have had the matter referred to in Sir Reginald’s letter considered and, our advice is that the views concerning contravention of Section 92 of the Broadcasting and Television Act by News Ltd expressed in that letter are incorrect.

Accordingly, so far as this company is concerned, would you regard Sir Reginald’s request that you investigate the matter as withdrawn.

Yours sincerely, E. H. P. ABELES Joint Chief Executive

ATTACHMENT E

Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600 26 March 1980

Dear Sir Reginald,

I refer to your letter dated 5 December 1979 to my col- league, the Attorney-General, concerning a possible contravention of Section 92 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942.

I have obtained information from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and have considered this carefully. In all the circumstances, I do not propose to take any action under the Broadcasting and Television Act.

Yours sincerely, A. A. STALEY

Sir Reginald Ansett, K B E., Chairman,

Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, 489 Swanston Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000

ATTACHMENT F

Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600 26 March 1980

Mr dear AttorneyGeneral,

I refer to your letter dated 22 January 1 980, under cover of which you provide a copy of a letter dated 5 December 1979 received by you from Sir Reginald Ansett.

I attach a copy of a letter dated 20 February 1 980 from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to my Department providing background information on this matter and repotting developments since Sir Reginald ‘s letter to you.

Under the circumstances, I believe that a prosecution should not be instituted, and I have written to Sir Reginald as attached.

Yours sincerely, A. A. STALEY

Senator the Hon. Peter Durack, Q.C., Attorney-General, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600

EEP:PL 2 1/5/80 21 May 1980

Dear Mr Jones,

On 20 May 1980 you asked me a question without notice concerning a letter from the Secretary, Ansett Transport Industries Limited, to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.

I enclose a copy of my reply to your question which I have asked to be included in the Hansard record of the House of Representatives.

Yours sincerely, A. A. STALEY

Mr B. G.Jones, M.P., Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

(QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE)

Mr STALEY; On 20 May 1980 Mr Barry Jones asked me a question without notice concerning a letter dated 5 December 1979 from the Secretary of Ansett Transport Industries Limited to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The answer to the honourable member’s question is:-

By a letter dated 5 December 1 979, Mr W. Franklin, Secretary of Ansett Transport Industries Limited, wrote to the Secretary of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. I attach a copy of this letter which the Tribunal considered did not call for a reply.

ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LIMITED

(Incorporated in Victoria) Registered office: 489 Swanston Street, Melbourne,

Australia

Telephone 345 3 144 Telex AA30086. Telegrams and cables ANSETT’ Melbourne, P.O. Box 362F, Melbourne 300 1 .

Decembers, 1979

The Secretary,

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, 153 Walker Street,

NORTH SYDNEY, NSW 2060

Dear Sir,

As you are no doubt aware, the media and particularly the major newspapers have reported that since last Thursday, holds all the issued capital of Austarama Television Proprietary Limited, operator of Channel ‘O ‘ in Melbourne, and Universal Telecasters (Q’ld) Limited, the operator of Channel ‘O’ in Brisbane.

Such reports further indicated that News Limited and/or interests connected therewith hold, and/or may be beneficially entitled to more than 1 5% of the issued ordinary shares in Ansett Transport Industries Limited. Indeed, in today’s press the Chairman of The Bell Group is reported as confirming the sale to News Limited of all the shares in Bell Bros. Air Charter Pty Ltd, itself the beneficial owner of 14% of the shares in this Company. As you are well aware, News Limited has a controlling sharehold interest in United Telecasters Sydney Ltd., the operator of Channel ‘10’ in Sydney.

Herewith are copies of notices forwarded to various shareholders in Ansett Transport Industries Limited and to News Limited in order to ascertain whether the transfers of shares in ATI or other companies or the holding of shares in ATI or other companies by the parties mentioned therein constitutes a contravention or offence under the Act.

No doubt you will make your own enquiries in order to ascertain whether any contravention of the Act is being perpetrated or offence committed, and no doubt you will invoke all powers given to you under the Act in order to stop the continuance of any such contravention or offence and act accordingly.

Yours faithfully, W.F.FRANKLIN, Corporate Secretary and Finance Manager

EEP:PL 2 1/5/80 21 May 1980

Dear Mr Johnson,

On 20 May last you asked me a question without notice regarding the response by the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to a request from Mr Nicholson, Q.C., that the Tribunal produce a letter from Sir Reginald Ansett, as Managing Director of Ansett Transport Industries Limited, to the Tribunal.

I enclose a copy of my answer to your question which I have asked to be included in the Hansard record of the House of Representatives.

Yours sincerely, A. A. STALEY

Mr L.M. Johnson, M.P., Parliament House, CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600

Mr Staley On 20 May 1 980 Mr Keith Johnson asked me a question without notice concerning a letter from Ansett Transport Industies Limited which was referred to in the Tribunal ‘s inquiry into the purchase of shares by Control Investments Pty Ltd in the issued capital of Ansett Transport Industries Limited. The answer to the honourable member’s question is:

The Secretary of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal wrote to Senator Button in March 1980 (and not on 8 February as stated in the question) in response to a letter dated 8 February from Senator Button.

The transcript of the Tribunal’s proceedings into the application by Control Investments Pty Ltd for approval to the transfer of shares in Ansett Transport Industries Limited records that Mr Nicholson, Q.C., asked the Tribunal to produce a letter from Sir Reginald Ansett, as Managing Director of Ansett Transport Industries Limited, to the Tribunal.

There is no record of such a letter to the Tribunal. Sir Reginald Ansett did write to the Attorney-General on the subject of the purchase by News Limited of shares in Ansett Transport Industries Limited.

EEP: PL2 1/5/80 21 May 1980

Dear Mr Kerin,

On 20 May last you asked me a question without notice on proceedings before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in Adelaide on 1 8 December 1 979 inquiring into an application for approval of the purchase of the issued capital of Southern Television Corporation Limited, licensee of NWS-9 Adelaide.

In enclose a copy of my reply to your question which I have asked to be included in the Hansard record of the House of Representatives.

Yours sincerely, A. A. STALEY

Mr J. C. Kerin, M.P., Parliament House, CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600

Mr Staley On 20 May 1980 Mr Kerin asked me a question without notice asking whether it is a fact that, during the inquiry by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on 18 December 1979 into the purchase of the issued capital of Southern Television Corporation Limited, the licensee of NWS-9 Adelaide, Senator Button was misled and denied the opportunity to present further argument regarding possible illegal acts by the News Limited group. The answer to the honourable member’s question is:

Senator Button appeared for the ALP, which was approved by the Tribunal as a party to the inquiry involved. The transcript stands as the official record o.’the proceedings before the Tribunal. There are remedies available to a party to proceedings before the Tribunal if a party considers that the Tribunal has acted contrary to the law.

EEP: PL 2 1/5/80 21 May 1980

Dear Mr McLeay,

On 20 May last you asked me, without notice, whether I would table a letter from Ansett Transport Industries Limited which was referred to on page 37 of the transcript of the proceedings of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal’s inquiry into an application by Control Investments Pty Ltd for approval to the transfer of shares purchased in Ansett Transport Industries Limited.

I enclose a copy of my answer to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the purchase by Control Investments Pty Ltd of shares in Ansett Transport Industries Limited and which includes, as an attachment, the letter referred to in your question.

Yours sincerely, A. A. STALEY

Mr L. McLeay, M.P., Parliament House, CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600

CS/79/7467/86

16 January 1980

Your ref. JAH:JI

Dear Sirs,

Application by Mr G. R. Ihlein for consent pusuant to section 92ka of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942

I refer to your letter dated 14 December 1 979 in which you seek the Attorney-General’s consent to the institute of proceedings by Mr Ihlein against News Limited and Cruden Investments Pty Ltd for alleged breaches of section 92 ( 1 ) (a) ofthe Broadcasting and Television Act 1942.

In my view, one of the matters to be taken into account by the Attorney-General in considering your request is whether the evidence that Mr Ihlein would call against the proposed defendants would establish a prima facie case.

Accordingly, a written opinion from an experienced Counsel as to the adequacy of the available evidence to establish a prima facie case should be supplied to the Attorney-General.

Yours faithfully B. J. O ‘DONOVAN Acting Crown Solicitor

Messrs Lethlean, Howie and Maher, Solicitors, 555 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000.

Dear Sirs,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 14 December 1979 to the Attorney-General concerning your client Mr G. R. Ihlein of East Brighton, Victoria.

The Attorney-General will write to you on this matter.

Yours faithfully PETER KEOGH Senior Private Secretary

Lethlean, Howie and Maher, Solicitors, 555 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000.

LETHLEAN. HOWIE AND MAHER

Solicitors 555 Lonsdale Street Melbourne, Victoria 3000

Telephone (03) 67 8131 Ausdoc DX 395 December 14, 1979

Linton R. Lethlean, LLB. John A. Howie, LLB. Laurence W. Maher, LLM.

Our Ref.JAH:JL Your Ref

Senator the Hon. P. D. Durack, Q.C. Attorney-General, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600.

Dear Mr Attorney,

We act on behalf of Mr Graham Richard Ihlien of 26 Summerhill Road, East Brighton in the State of Victoria, who has instructed us to seek your consent, pursuant to S.92KA of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, as amended, to institute proceedings in his name against News Limited and Cruden Investments Pty Ltd.

The basis of our client’s application for your consent is, firstly, that in relation to News Limited, that company controls the licence of the Sydney television station, TEN- 10 and by virtue of its acknowleded shareholding in Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, it now holds a prescribed interest in Melbourne television station, ATV-0 and Brisbane television station, TVQ- 10. Secondly, in relation to Cruden Investments Pty Ltd our instructions are that by virtue of the extent of its shareholding in News Limited, it also holds a prescribed interest in the television stations referred to above.

In each case, the company’s interests in the television stations concerned involves it having a prescribed interest, contrary to S.92 ( 1 ) (a) ofthe Act.

We would be grateful if you would give this matter your urgent attention.

Yours faithfully J. A. HOWIE Lethlean, Howie and Maher

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 May 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19800523_senate_31_s85/>.