Senate
4 December 1980

32nd Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 32nd Parliament
  3. 1980

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

page 333

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator CARRICK:
Minister for National Development and Energy · New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– 1 wish to make a brief statement regarding ministerial arrangements. I have to go abroad today to attend a meeting of the International Energy Agency in Paris, so 1 may have to leave this chamber before Question Time ends. If so, I ask that for both today and tomorrow questions that would normally be directed to me as Leader of the Government be directed to the Attorney-General (Senator Durack). In my absence the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Peter Baume) will act as Minister for National Development and Energy. This arrangement will remain in force only for the remainder of this session.

page 333

PETITIONS

Goats Milk Formulae

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– 1 present the following petition from 26 citizens of Australia:

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

Its objection to the removal from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme of all goats milk formulae. We request that the Government restore to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme this basic natural food which is essential to many babies who are allergic to both cows milk and soy and corn substitutes. The failure to do so will place an intolerable cost burden on their parents and no alternatives for the child as the only manufacturer will cease production if the product is withdrawn.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Goats Milk Formulae

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 103 citizens of Australia:

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

Us objection to the removal from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme of all goats milk formulae. We request that the Government restore to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme this basic natural food which is essential to many babies who are allergic to both cows milk and soy and corn substitutes. The failure to do so will place an intolerable cost burden on their parents and no alternatives for the child as the only manufacturer will cease production if the product is withdrawn.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

page 333

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Notice of Motion

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

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

That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 24 February 1981, at 3 p.m., or such other day and hour as may be fixed by the President, or, in the event of the President being unavailable, the Chairman of Committees, and that the day and hour of meeting so determined shall be notified to each Senator.

page 333

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Notice of Motion

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

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

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

page 333

TRANSFER OF COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES

Notice of Motion

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

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

That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence for inquiry and report -

The packing, storage, transport and other issues relating to the handling of the personal effects of Commonwealth employees transferred to overseas posts and of Defence and Foreign Affairs staff transferred within Australia.

page 333

BILLS: FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENTS

Notice of Motion

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

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

That all Bills and amendments to Bills brought into the Senate should be supported by a financial impact statement which contains the following information:

The estimated revenue or loss of revenue implicit in the proposed Bill to the end of the first complete fiscal year;

the estimated cost to government to implement the proposed Bill and the estimated recurring annual cost; and

the estimated cost to industry or other sections of the community to implement the legislation and the estimated annual recurring cost.

page 333

MINISTERS OF STATE IN THE SENATE

Notice of Motion

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

– I give notice on behalf of Senator Rae and myself that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate -

Senators should no longer hold office as Ministers of State, with the exception of any Senator holding the Office of Leader of the Government in the Senate, who, in order adequately to represent Government priorities to the Senate, should remain a member of the Cabinet; and

Chairmen of the Senate’s Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees should be granted allowances, staffs and other entitlements similar to those Currently granted to Ministers other than Ministers in the Cabinet.

page 334

PECUNIARY INTERESTS OF FORMER MINISTER

Notice of Motion

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

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

That the Senate requests that the Prime Minister table the statement of pecuniary interests provided by the member for Curtin as Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs; in particular, that the Prime Minister make public details of the financial affairs of the former Minister insofar as they relate to the disposal of the companies Stirling West Pty Ltd, Greenbank Pty Ltd and Frederic Salon Pty Ltd and their association with the companies Hulldale Pty Ltd and Rickford Administration Pty Ltd.

page 334

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 334

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator BUTTON:

– I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to the report of the Australian Broadcasting Commission for the year 1979-80 in which it is stated that the imposition of staff ceilings is clearly in conflict with section 43(2) of the Broadcasting and Television Act which empowers the Commission to appoint officers and temporary employees as it thinks fit. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s view on this was first transmitted to the Government on 20 September 1978? Does the Government recognise that this is a continued diminution of the independence of the ABC? Why has the conflict to which attention was drawn two years ago not yet been resolved?

Senator PETER BAUME:
Minister Assisting the Minister for National Development and Energy · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have been provided with a little information relating to this subject. The Government has in the past indicated its willingness to give special consideration to particular difficulties which the ABC might be experiencing in this area. The Commission’s appropriation in this financial year, that is, 1980-81, was 1 1 per cent more than it had been in the previous year. In addition, the Commission has been given authority to generate revenue from entrepreneurial activities.

The issues commented upon by the ABC in its report relate to matters which are currently being examined by the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The Dix Committee was established by this Government. It was given wide-ranging terms of reference to review the present and future services of the ABC, its policies, its organisational structures and its performance. Of course, that would include the question of staff ceilings. That Committee has engaged specialist consultants in the financial and management fields. Its report will no doubt cover such matters as staffing and funding appropriations for the Commission.

The honourable senator asked whether it is a fact that the information which he mentioned was first transmitted to the Government on 20 September 1978. I do not know the answer to that question. I will refer the matter to my colleague to see whether we can obtain the information. I do not think there is any justification for a view that the Government places any kind of decreasing importance on the ABC. On the contrary, I think the Government’s actions indicate a continuing concern for the Commission and its performance.

Senator BUTTON:

– I ask a supplementary question. In view of the Minister’s answer I now ask: Is he prepared to comment on that section of the report which states that the ABC is now in a relatively worse financial position that it was five years ago?

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I will refer that comment to my colleague. As I said before, I think the Government’s record in supporting the ABC is clear and evident.

page 334

QUESTION

SALVATION ARMY HOSPITAL

Senator HAMER:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that the longestablished and highly regarded Salvation Army private hospital, Bethesda, in Richmond, Victoria, is about to close because of low bed occupancy and the consequential loss of income? Does the Minister agree that Bethesda has been forced to close because of the impossibility of private hospitals competing with the lower charges for private beds in public hospitals, in spite of the higher bedday costs in public hospitals, and not because of inefficiency or inferior care for patients? Does the Minister agree that this Government is firmly committed to the concept of private hospitals? Has the Minister for Health already intervened personally in the case of Bethesda? Is there any chance that such a valuable private hospital and nurse training school can be rescued?

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– The Government’s commitment to the continued existence of the private hospital sector in Australia has been stated and restated many times. I do not know the factual basis for Press reports, which I also have seen, regarding the Bethesda hospital in Melbourne. I do not agree that private hospitals cannot compete as things stand. But as the honourable senator has asked a number of questions which require detailed responses, I think it best that they be referred to my colleague, the Minister for Health. I will obtain an early reply for the honourable senator.

page 335

QUESTION

ELECTORAL SYSTEM

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 refer the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services to my question without notice addressed to him on 27 November, last Thursday, concerning the need for an inquiry into the workings of the electoral system. I now ask: Did the Chief Electoral Officer undertake such an inquiry last year and present his report to the Minister earlier this year? If so, was the report subsequently printed? If so, why has the report not been circulated to allow an informed debate on this important subject? Will the Government now order that the report be circulated?

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– After Senator Gietzelt asked the question of me last week, the substance of his question was referred to the Minister for Administrative Services for a detailed response. The honourable senator has now added to that question another four or five matters which require answers. I will also refer those to the Minister. We are seeking an early response for the honourable senator, and as soon as I have information it will be made available to him.

Senator GIETZELT:

- Mr President, 1 wish to ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister able to say whether the report is highly critical of the electoral system and whether this is the reason that the report has not been published? In view of the Government’s attitude towards freedom of information, will the Minister undertake as a matter of urgency to have the report presented to Parliament before it rises?

Senator PETER BAUME:

– Had I been able to answer any part of the honourable senator’s question I would have done so. I am not able to say what the contents of the report were. As I said, I am referring the questions to my colleague and when I have information which is reliable I will come back to the senator.

page 335

QUESTION

ARMY: ENTRANCE QUALIFICATIONS

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence whether it is a fact that high paper entrance qualifications are nowadays precluding many aspirants from joining the Army to perform, in some instances, routine duties? Does the Government consider it appropriate to have across the board entrance qualifications for all segments in the armed Services? Further, are staff ceilings limiting additional recruitment to the Army?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Minister for Defence has informed me that it is necessary to have higher entry standards for skilled tradesmen than for those enlisting in the general establishments in the Services. For general enlistment, the education standard is kept to the minimum level possible to absorb training, compatible with Army requirements. Only 5 per cent of applicants were rejected on literacy grounds in 1979-80. The Army ceiling for 1980-81 is limited to 32,850, which is the level assessed as necessary on current planning for Army responsibilities, lt is expected that this ceiling will be attained in 1 980-8 1 .

page 335

QUESTION

WORLD HERITAGE LIST: SOUTH-WEST TASMANIA

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. Will the Government be recommending that the southwest corner of Tasmania be nominated for the world heritage list together with the Government’s already announced intention to nominate Kakadu National Park and the Great Barrier Reef?

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– The honourable senator’s question involves Government policy. I will refer the question to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment to obtain an answer which I will bring back to the honourable senator.

page 335

QUESTION

POLAND

Senator KNIGHT:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of reports that United States military strategists now believe the Soviet Union will invade Poland later this month? What advice has the Australian Government on these reports? Can the Minister confirm whether it is now assessed that the Soviet Union will, in fact, invade Poland? What action is the Government taking in consultation with the United States and with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries to prevent any such invasion or to resist it if it occurs?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

–

The Minister for Foreign Affairs is aware of reports which suggest that Soviet forces in the region of Poland have been placed in an advanced state of preparedness. The Government is also aware of speculation about the possible imminence of Soviet intervention in Poland. On 2 December the Minister for Foreign Affairs said that the Government is not in a position to say whether or not Soviet intervention in Poland is imminent. The Minister expressed in the strongest possible terms his hope that it is not. Of course, it would be unwise to ignore the ominous possibility of Soviet intervention with force. I am not able to add anything to the comments made on 2 December by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but I can confirm that yesterday the Minister’s statement was conveyed formally to the Soviet Ambassador in Canberra by the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Ambassador was asked to bring it to the attention of the Soviet authorities.

page 336

QUESTION

FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATIONS

Senator HEARN:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that a crisis in family planning funds has been reached which could result in the closure of some services and that the uncertainty about funding threatens the job security of family planning trained staff and the loss of experienced and effective personnel? Is he aware also that the Family Planning Association of Tasmania (lnc) was unable to pay staff last month until the Minister released funds for the month and that funds available for the 1980-81 financial year are still unknown? As there is greater efficiency with long term planning, will the Minister examine the possibility of triennial funding for family planning association programs to achieve continuity and responsible financial management, thus ensuring the retention of staff trained for this community service?

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– The honourable senator’s question is in several parts. I have had long contact with family planning associations across Australia and I have watched their activities fairly closely. I am not aware of a crisis in funding. I am not aware that staff positions are endangered. I am not aware of any crisis specifically affecting Tasmanian services.

Senator Georges:

– You are not doing too well.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I have said that I am not aware of these things and, therefore, I cannot confirm or deny what the honourable senator suggests. She asks a particular question regarding the desirability or otherwise of triennial funding for family planning services. This would be a question of policy and, as such, should be referred to the responsible Minister. I will undertake to refer to the Minister the matter suggested by the honourable senator.

page 336

QUESTION

NATIONAL ESTATE PROGRAM

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister relates to the allocation in the 1980 Budget of a mere $2.2m for the National Estate program. Bearing in mind the recognition which the Prime Minister gave in launching the world conservation strategy in March 1980, that Government grants to a variety of conservation bodies through the National Estate program have helped promote community involvement and awareness in conservation, I ask the Minister: Firstly, is he aware that these grants have remained at the same level since 1976 and have been so eroded by inflation that they are now claimed to be worth less than half their original value? Secondly, in view of the Government’s commitment to the National Estate program, will the Minister inform the Senate why nothing was done to restore the real value of these grants in the Budget? Thirdly, does the Minister agree that the Government should do whatever is possible to encourage the sense of pride and identity which Australian people feel for the National Estate? Fourthly, if he does agree, will he assure the Senate that consideration will be given by the Government to increasing the measure of financial assistance which it provides to the national trusts of Australia?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Senator Missen has asked an important question. The concept of the National Estate is an important one. At the outset, I would agree that the Government should do whatever is possible to encourage the sense of pride and identity which the people feel concerning the National Estate. As to the latter parts of his question, the answer is yes. I believe that an examination of our record demonstrates that although we have had difficult financial times we have been careful to ensure that reasonable funding has been provided for the restitution, preservation and improvement of buildings and landscapes, items of particular significance to the National Estate.

It is true that this year a figure of some $2m has been provided. We have also provided $800,000 to Tasmania as part of a seven-year conservation program to develop and restore the Port Arthur region. I am advised that we have allocated $350,000 to volunteer conservation bodies and we have contributed $50,000 to the World Wildlife Fund in Australia. Nearly three-quarters of a million dollars has been allocated to the Australian Heritage Commission for the National Estate programs in the Territories. We have allocated some $260,000 to the various national trust bodies in Australia and in the Territories. Senator Missen pointed to a very important function. 1 assure him of the significance that the Government sees in this concept and the work involved, and that the Government will, accordingly to the demands upon it, give significant priority to it in the future.

page 337

QUESTION

OPENING OF PRIVATE MAIL

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– 1 ask the Minister representing the Minister for Communications whether the Minister’s attention has been drawn to the practice of some employers of opening the mail addressed to employees at their place of work. This is of particular concern to union officials written to in that capacity, and of general concern to employees whose correspondents may know of their place of work but not their private address. Will the Minister consider making a statement or requesting Australia Post to advertise the fact that such opening of mail is almost certainly illegal and definitely improper?

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

- Senator Tate asked whether my attention has been drawn to a practice which he described. My attention has not been drawn to this practice. I think most honourable senators value, as the honourable senator obviously does, the right of every Australian to privacy in relation to his or her mail. I think it might be appropriate to refer this matter to my colleague, the Minister for Communications, to see whether there have been complaints of this kind, and to raise with him the matters to which the honourable senator has referred.

page 337

QUESTION

CENSUS INFORMATION ON THE HANDICAPPED

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question deals with census and statistics. I presume it should be directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware that in the 1976 census some general questions were asked about personal handicaps? Is it a fact that in the 1981 census forms no references are made to the handicapped? If so, and as 1981 is the International Year of the Disabled Person, and as statistics are vital to any program of assistance to disabled people, will the Minister review the situation mentioned and give the Senate any appropriate information on the position?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI am not aware of the detail in the census referred to by Senator Davidson. I am aware of controversy that has ranged around whether questions of this nature ought to be included in a census form. It may be recalled that in relation to the previous census there was some discussion as to whether this matter was a proper subject for a question, and whether it ought to be dealt with by the people who considered themselves to have some handicap or disability. I will refer the matter to the Treasurer for him to make inquiries as to what is envisaged in the census form. From my experience, I hope that whatever information with regard to disability and handicap can be gained in the community is available to governments in the planning of programs and services. If in the International Year of the Disabled Person we are able to do something that would facilitate the supply of information and the analysis of information this could prove to be a very worthwhile project indeed. I will see whether I am able to provide any further information on the matter from the Treasurer’s office.

page 337

QUESTION

REPATRIATION: NANCY LAW CASE

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– I refer the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs again to the Repatriation Commission v. Nancy Law case which is before the High Court and to which I referred on Tuesday. Is action being withheld on some applications for repatriation benefits pending the outcome of this case? If so, how many applications are in this category and how soon will they be finalised when the High Court hands down a decision?

Senator MESSNER:
Minister Assisting the Treasurer · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have no particular information concerning cases of that type which are before my department. I have no further comment to make in respect of a matter which is before the High Court.

page 337

QUESTION

STOCKS OF CRUDE OIL

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for National Development and Energy and refer in particular to energy. I ask: If Australian overseas and domestic supplies of crude oil were cut off, how long would our current stocks last assuming normal consumption patterns? Also, in the light of the recent Bass Strait strike is the Government giving consideration to increasing our reserve capacity, especially when we consider the highly volatile nature of the Middle East at the present time?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The whole question of ensuring an energy balance in Australia, whatever may be the contingencies, has occupied the Government and in particular me very heavily over recent months. The International Energy Agency has envisaged that its member nations should lift up their stocks to a 90-days reserve concept. Australia is hoping to lift its stocks to a 100-days reserve concept. The fact is that we have supplies of indigenous crude oil coming from Bass Strait for the time being, providing us with about 67 per cent of our consumption needs. Assuming there is no breakdown or disruption for other reasons in this supply, if supplies were cut off from overseas one could rely, for a period ahead but not for many years ahead, upon 60-odd per cent self-sufficiency in crude oil. That percentage can be added to fast. Under those circumstances it would be possible to switch fairly rapidly to liquefied petroleum gas for automotive purposes. Once that avenue was developed we could in fact get a considerable percentage - up to 14 per cent - of out fleets operating in that way. It is possible to convert fleets to ordinary compressed natural gas in time.

Of course, in the longer period we could produce ethanol as an extender. We are working in Australia specifically to get stocks of both the product and crude oil in the ordinary sense at a level of 100-days supply. That means storage, both at the seaboard and in decentralised areas, the amount that would be at sea at any one time being taken into account, as well as a knowledge of Bass Strait. This is a vital subject for Australia. Our main objective in Australia, as it is for the world, is to conserve our energy of all kinds so that we have reserves to call upon if necessary.

page 338

QUESTION

SYDNEY HARBOUR FORESHORE

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. By way of preface I refer to the lengthy dialogue I have had with him in the Senate about his assurances of a peaceful transfer of Commonwealth occupied Sydney Harbour foreshore back to New South Wales. Is he aware of the existence of an organisation known as the Friends of North Head which is very concerned about the erection of television translator towers in that area? Mr President, I lean to you for guidance, but the Senate records will show that I am tabling a document which I would call a statement of intent from the Friends of North Head.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Mulvihill, are. you seeking its incorporation?

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I table it. 1 assume the Minister does not have an answer at his fingertips. If he has, I will withdraw my request.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am very well aware of the concern of Senator Mulvihill and indeed of all honourable senators, particularly those from New

South Wales, that we should achieve the resumption to the State of Commonwealth land, in particular North Head which is one of our great heritages and one of the great natural spots of the State. I am not aware of an organisation called the Friends of North Head. I can understand that individuals would seek-to ensure that the intentions are carried out. If Senator Mulvihill either tables the document or brings a copy of it to my notice, I will put it under study. .

I was not aware about a proposal to erect a television translator in that area. If there is one, I will invite the Minister for Communications to look at the document and I will draw his attention to the fact that North Head is to be a national park of considerable significance. I will take note of the document to which Senator Mulvihill referred and I. will look at the question. I will refer the other ‘ question to the Minister for Communications. As to the long term goal, my advice is that the Government will continue with its timetable to return the land.

page 338

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) ACT

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Can the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs advise the Senate- which areas, and the percentage of Northern Territory land they represent, are now held under the Federal Government’s Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act as reserves, land claims granted, special purpose leases including leases in mining areas, pastoral leases, et cetera? What land claims have been lodged with the Aboriginal Land Commissioner which have not yet been heard and what area, as a percentage of Northern Territory land, do these claims represent? Is the Minister aware of any claims yet to be presented to the Aboriginal Land Commissioner and the area they would represent? Finally, when is it expected that the hearings of all land claims will be finalised and recommendations submitted?

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– The; Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act provides for land described in the first Schedule to the Act, including all former Aboriginal reserves except Bagot, to be granted to Aboriginals and to be held as freehold land. I can advise the honourable senator that, with the exception of Hermannsburg, the titles have been granted. The areas involved total approximately 256,677 square kilometres, which is just over 19 per cent of the total area of the Northern Territory. Decisions have also been made to grant seven claims under the Act. The areas involved total another 105,023 square kilometres which is another 7.8 per cent of the Northern Territory area.

Special purpose leases are not held by Aboriginals under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act but under the Northern Territory’s legislation. However, the areas involved total approximately 45 square kilometres. Pastoral leases are not held under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Pastoral leases in the Northern Territory purchased for Aboriginals from Commonwealth Government funds total approximately 19,866 square kilometres which is another 1 .5 per cent of the total area of the Northern Territory. These figures exclude Utopia and Willowra, which are included in the figures I gave for successful land claim’s. The claims lodged but not yet heard and determined total 42. They involve approximately 244,337 square kilometres, which is a further 1 8.2 per cent of the total area of the Northern Territory. It should be borne in mind, of course, that although the land claims have been lodged they have not yet been granted and the Commissioner is required to take into account a number of matters in granting such claims. We do not yet know how many of those claims will be granted.

The honourable senator’s third question asked whether I was aware of any claims yet to be presented to the Aboriginal Land Commissioner. I am not aware of any such claims. His fourth question concerned my expectation of when hearings of all land claims would be finalised. I advise the honourable senator that it will be some years yet before all the land claims are determined. I am aware of Mr Justice Toohey’s program for 1981. lt is a very full program but he will hear only some of the claims. I have some detailed schedules of the information sought. As it may suit the purpose of the Senate, I seek leave to have those schedules incorporated in Hansard to amplify the answer I have given to Senator Kilgariff.

Leave granted.

Claims have been lodged over all except Robinson River, and the areas involved are included in the Table of Land Claims to be determined.

page 340

QUESTION

QANTAS BAN ON DUTY FREE LIQUOR

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Recently, stewards of Qantas Airways Ltd quite rightly said that they would ban the carrying on board aircraft of any duty free liquor because of the unruly and dangerous behaviour of some passengers. A few irresponsible passengers are thus depriving other passengers of duty free purchases of liquor. Will the Minister take steps to arrange with other countries that passengers may make their duty free purchases on arrival at their destinations rather than at the airports of departure?

Senator MESSNER:
LP

– I undertake to refer that question to the Minister and obtain an early reply for Senator Elstob.

page 340

QUESTION

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister for National Development and Energy look at the proposition put by many conservationist organisations that a low interest loans policy be implemented to encourage home owners to install solar space and water heaters for domestic use? I believe such a scheme is at present operating in New Zealand most successfully. As Australia’s climate would lend itself to this form of energy conservation I hope the Minister will give the proposition his careful consideration.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– A number of incentives and stimuli have been looked at and are being looked at for energy conservation, including the use of solar energy. As the honourable senator knows, certain concessions were made regarding sales tax on solar equipment. The progress of the domestic use of solar arrays in Australia has been very good. Roughly, in financial terms, it has doubled year by year and as yet the Government has not felt the need to provide further stimuli. If that need were to be perceived I have no doubt that it would be considered. The honourable senator will know that in the recent election campaign an undertaking was given to provide tax deductibility for the cost of insulation of first homes. That form of energy conservation is in parallel with the use of solar energy. I will keep the matter under study.

As Senator Walters fully knows - the implications of her question stress this - one of the important things about solar energy is that it is a renewable source of energy and, therefore, we should encourage its use. The real need is to increase research on solar energy throughout the world so that we can make some major scientific breakthroughs. What we know at the moment does not give us a wide capacity to use solar energy. The fact is that in many ways it is not cost effective, and in some ways the amount of energy used in creating the product is larger than the amount of energy saved at the other end. That is not said in any way to denigrate the progress of the use of solar arrays. 1 simply stress that so much more has to be done to reach an understanding of it. I will keep that program under review.

page 341

QUESTION

DIETHYLSTILBOESTROL

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I have in the past raised with the Minister the problem arising from the use of diethylstilboestrol. I asked on 17 September whether the Minister would have begun an immediate search of pharmaceutical benefits records to identify the users of DES. In a reply received on 23 October the Minister advised that it is not possible to use the records of the pharmaceutical benefits branch to identify women who have had the drug prescribed for them. Will the Minister tell me why it is not possible to use these records to identify these people?

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– I think it would be inappropriate for me to do other than to refer that question to the Minister for Health. The honourable senator wants to know why he gave a certain answer, and I think he should be given the chance to provide an answer for the honourable senator.

page 341

QUESTION

POPULATION STATISTICS

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister representing the Treasurer noted an article in yesterday’s Canberra Times dealing with various population projections which are quoted as pros and contras for an increased immigration program. According to this article, the Australian Bureau of Statistics recently revised its 14 months-old projection of Australia’s population for the year 2001 from approximately 17 million to 19.2 million. Can the Minister inform the Senate what checks and controls are being used by the ABS to ensure that more accurate and reliable information is received from that organisation, as the information supplied, in many instances, gives a completely false picture of the actual situation?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI will need to refer that matter regarding the collection of statistics to the Treasurer to inquire what checks, balances and controls are used to ensure that accurate information is available. I will see that the question is drawn to the attention of the Treasurer and seek an early answer.

page 341

QUESTION

FRASER ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL INQUIRY: INTIMIDATION OF WITNESSES

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– Is the Attorney-General aware of the campaign of harassment and intimidation which has been waged for the last five years by Murphyores Incorporated Pty Ltd against Mr John Sinclair, the President of the Fraser Island defence organisation, in respect of evidence given by Mr Sinclair at the Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry in 1975, including in particular the defamation action which has selectively been mounted against Mr Sinclair and his organisation and which, in the absence of legal aid support from the Commonwealth, he was recently obliged to settle out of court? Was the Attorney requested some time ago to initiate, in consultation, no doubt, with the Minister for the Environment, a prosecution against Murphyores under section 23 (1) (b) and (c) of the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 which is, of course, specifically designed to prevent the victimisation of inquiry witnesses? What action, if any, does the Government propose to take on this matter?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I do not wish to be seen to be adopting the language of Senator Evans in describing the controversy, to use a neutral word, that exists between Mr John Sinclair and Murphyores Incorporated Pty Ltd and the complaints that Mr Sinclair has made. I am aware of them.

Senator Georges:

– You wouldn’t be wrong if you did use the same terms.

Senator DURACK:

– That may be Senator Georges’s view. I am simply saying that I am aware of the controversy and the complaints in relation to this matter. I do not propose to adopt one side or the other by using words such as those which were included in the question asked by Senator Evans and with which Senator Georges may agree. The position is that the complaint made by Mr Sinclair and the question of prosecution that he has raised are matters for the Minister under the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. I have referred that matter to the Minister. The Minister has sought some advice from me or from my Department in relation to the matter, which 1 have supplied. At this stage I am not aware of the Minister’s decision, or whether he has made one. I will follow up the matter with him and seek a further answer for Senator Evans.

Senator EVANS:

– I ask a supplementary question. Will the Attorney-General acknowledge, as he has in the context of the broadcasting proceedings, that the ultimate responsibility for initiating prosecutions under Federal legislation is his own?

Senator DURACK:

– I do not resile from anything I have said here on that subject on other occasions.

page 342

QUESTION

POLAND

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, follows a similar question asked today by Senator Knight referring to the tense situation in Poland and to the intimidating stance of the Soviet military near the Polish border. With regard to Polish resistance to foreign aggression, I ask the Minister whether he can confirm the report in today’s Australian that:

Sixty Polish generals and 200 senior staff officers last night warned that they would lead a popular uprising if foreign forces crossed their borders.

Such a popular uprising would be irrespective of the stance of the Polish Government.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI have no up to date or detailed information with regard to comments on the events in Poland that have been made in the Press as recently as today. As I have said, the Government is aware of reports which suggest that Soviet forces have been placed in an advanced state of preparedness. I have also stated that the Government is aware of speculation about the possible influence of a Soviet intervention. I am unable to add anything to the statement that I have already made on this matter. I will need to refer the question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for a response. Obviously the situation is changing from day to day. If further information is available I will see that the Senate is advised.

page 342

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND ELECTORATES: REDISTRIBUTION

Senator GEORGES:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, who is responsible for electoral matters. My understanding of the Commonwealth Electoral Act is that if in any State onequarter of the seats are over quota a redistribution shall take place. Since seven out of the 19 seats in Queensland are now over quota, when will a redistribution take place in Queensland?

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– I note Senator Georges’s understanding. I also note his observation that more than one-quarter of the seats in Queensland are over quota. I shall draw the matter to the attention of the Minister for Administrative Services and seek a response from him.

page 342

QUESTION

JAPANESE SQUID BOATS IN AUSTRALIAN WATERS

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry been drawn to reports in the Press concerning the non-operation this year of Japanese squid boats in Australian waters? The Tasmanian Press, while conceding both a current glut and poor prices, reported:

The real problem is in (Canberra) officialdom which put obstructions unnecessarily into a market working to find its feet.

Can the Minister outline the nature- and extent of these alleged obstructions and the reasons for both their implementation and the lateness of their notification?

Senator CHANEY:
Minister for Social Security · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have some advice on that matter. It is contrary to the statement which was quoted by Senator Archer, namely, that problems are imposed by Canberra officialdom. My advice from the Minister for Primary Industry is that no obstructions have been placed in the way of Japanese squid vessels coming to Australia by officials in his Department. In fact, those officials are involved in the South Eastern Fisheries Committee, which is comprised of representatives from Tasmania, Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales and the Commonwealth. That Committee is pressing strongly to have guidelines governing the operation of foreign vessels in joint ventures approved for reference to the Australian Fisheries Council. This- was, in fact, done and the Council in Darwin on 12 September approved the guidelines. They were subsequently endorsed by the Government. I am advised that the timetable allowed vessels which wished to come here to ample time to obtain approval. All applications by the Japanese and their Australian partners were withdrawn for the reasons which the honourable senator referred to in his question. There is a glut of squid in store in Japan. As a result the price is low at the moment. Fuel costs are high and it is simply uneconomic for them to come here. That is the reason. It is not the reason put forward in the newspaper report.

page 342

QUESTION

RYE GRASS TOXICITY

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology. Rye grass toxicity causes very high stock losses in parts of Western Australia, South Australia and, I understand, in other States as well. Will the Minister ascertain the extent of research being carried out in Australia into this growing problem- and investigate the possibility of giving research, into rye grass toxicity a higher priority?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for Science and Technology and ask him to give an early reply.

page 343

QUESTION

DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Health to a report from the Victorian Director of the Consumer Affairs Bureau which was published in this morning’s Melbourne Age. In this report the Director questions the ethics of doctors who refer patients to hospitals which they own and recommends to the Victorian Government that doctors owning shares in private hospitals be required to declare a pecuniary interest before they refer patients to such hospitals. The Director of the Consumer Affairs Bureau compared the practice with a judge having shares in a gaol and being paid accommodation charges for inmates. I ask: Has/investment in hospitals by members of the medical profession ever been investigated and assessed by the Commonwealth Department of Health which, after all, pays a bed-day subsidy to all approved hospitals?

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– It is a very good time for this kind of question to arise because, as Senator O’Byrne will know, the Jamison Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals in. Australia is still meeting. It might be most appropriate if 1 refer Senator O’Byrne’s question - perhaps he can provide me with a copy of the story which was printed in today’s Age - to the Minister. It might be possible to refer the matter to the Jamison inquiry as it would seem to be relevant to the work which Mr Jamison is doing.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that there has been a request for the bed-day subsidy to be increased, will the Minister draw the attention of his colleague to the fact that the potential for conflict of interest should be resolved by a register of pecuniary interests of doctors? Would he also present this point of view that has been expressed by the Director of the Consumer Affairs in Victoria to the Jamison Commission of Inquiry?

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I had understood that that was part of the question. I will ensure that the matter is taken on board.

page 343

QUESTION

RESOURCES TAX

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Prime Minister to the Prime Minister’s statement to the National Press Club on 14 October 1980. The Prime Minister stated:

We are not going to introduce a resources tax. Mr Howard has made that perfectly plain, I have made that perfectly plain, other Ministers have made that perfectly plain.

In view of the Australian Labor Party’s expressed policy in the recent election campaign of introducing a resources tax, will the Minister reassure the developers of our resources about this Government’s attitude to a resources tax?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I would have thought that the Prime Minister had made the Government’s position perfectly plain. As Senator Sheil has quoted the remarks made by the Prime Minister, I do not think it is necessary for me to do any more than agree with, support and confirm what the Prime Minister has said on the subject.

page 343

QUESTION

ADELAIDE AIRPORT EXTENSIONS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport refers to the current works program at the Adelaide Airport in relation to the runway and the hard standings. Is it a fact that the modifications were approved only on the basis of the new types of aircraft being brought into use by Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia? In respect of the modifications, was any consideration given to the possibility of international flights using Adelaide Airport, which use is currently being pressed, as he knows, by tourist agencies, members of the past Government and the present Government of South Australia. If the answer is no, will some consideration be given in the works program to modifying the airport so that it can be used by international flights?

Senator MESSNER:
LP

– I have seen newspaper reports which indicate that the works being undertaken at Adelaide Airport at present are to do with increasing the facilities in relation to the new aircraft that are expected to be using the airport for domestic purposes within the next couple of years. However, as to the second part of Senator Bishop’s question, I have no information on overseas aircraft using the airport and therefore the need for any consequent upgrading. I would need to refer that to the Minister to obtain an early reply for Senator Bishop.

page 344

QUESTION

PROPOSED SCHEME OF INDUSTRIAL FELLOWSHIPS

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology whether the attention of the Minister for Science and Technology has been drawn to the latest report of the Australian Science and Technology Council entitled ‘Interaction between Industry, Higher Education and Government Laboratories’ and specifically to the proposal that a scheme of industrial fellowships be established in Australia, partly supported by Government funds. Would such a proposal make a major contribution to scientific and technological development in Australia and also be of potentially great benefit to Australian industry and to productivity? Will the Minister advise the Senate as soon as possible of the Government’s response to this rather exciting and innovative ASTEC proposal?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will draw the attention of the Minister for Science and Technology to that aspect of the report of ASTEC to which Senator Puplick refers. I will also refer to the Minister the comments made by Senator Puplick and ask the Minister to provide an early reply for the Senate. ‘

page 344

QUESTION

BUILDING INDUSTRY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction aware that there is a crisis in the building industry in South Australia and that the value of building approvals in the State dropped by $ 1 7.4m for August 1 980 compared with the figure for August 1979? What action is the Government taking to prevent the continuing downturn in private building construction in South Australia which showed a downturn of 135 dwellings for August this year compared with the figure for August last year?

Senator MESSNER:
LP

– 1 have no particular information to confirm or deny the statistics referred to by Senator McLaren and therefore I have no reason to doubt that they are correct. The truth of the matter is that the South Australian real estate market has been depressed for a number of years. This has largely been brought about by the lack of confidence created in the State as a result of the actions of the Dunstan Government. Consequently, with the change of government one year ago with the advent of the new Tonkin Government, we can expect an improving position in South Australia with an increased confidence in the State’s capacity to expand. Therefore, one can expect in the years ahead increasing development in the real estate market, in particular in housing, such as Senator McLaren would like to see happen.

Senator McLAREN:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. Whilst the Minister had no figures from which he could give me an answer, he was able to say that there had been a downturn in South Australia for many years. The figures I gave him suggested that as at August there was a downturn of $ 17.4m in approvals compared with August last year and a downturn of 150 in the number of nouses constructed compared with August last year. That proves that he is ducking the issue. I am asking what is being done to correct the position now. It appears from available figures that this downturn, for which the Minister blames the Dunstan Labor Government, has accelerated under the Tonkin Liberal Government.

Senator MESSNER:

– The position is contrary to that suggested by the honourable senator. I believe the onrush in the final stages of the Dunstan and Corcoran Labor governments created the problems with which the Tonkin Government is now faced in South Australia. I would have thought it was plainly evident that confidence in South Australia is rising as a result of there being a new government and that we can expect to see an improvement in that area in the future.

page 344

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BUREAU

Senator TATE:

– Does the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations recall my request to the Government in early 1 979 for the abolition of the Industrial Relations Bureau on the ground that it was exacerbating conflict and tension in the field of industrial relations rather than reducing it? In view of the fact that both employer and employee representatives have come to the same conclusion concerning this very expensive symbol of Liberal Party industrial relations policy, will the Government without delay do away with the Industrial Relations Bureau and replace it with the arbitration inspectorate within the normal departmental structures?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have searched both my memory and my brief and I have to confess that I do not recall the honourable senator’s request to the Government which he apparently made early in 1979 that it abolish the Industrial Relations Bureau. I apologise to the honourable senator for that lapse of memory. However, I will refer both his 1979 plea and his 1980 plea to the Minister for Industrial Relations and ask to him to consider it. I think the Minister then will give the honourable senator a considered reply to that request.

page 345

QUESTION

DUAL CITIZENSHIP LAWS IN THE SOVIET UNION

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Following advice in the previous Parliament by way of answers to questions without notice, what progress has been made towards completing studies by the departments concerned of dual citizenship laws enacted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and implications arising for Australian citizens who may be affected? Have any difficulties been experienced in Australia’s dealings with the USSR arising out of law which became effective in that country on 1 July 1979? What advice is given in Australia to those who could be affected and who undertake international travel?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

– I do not have any advice from the Minister for Foreign Affairs on this matter. As it is a question requesting information that could be of public interest, may I suggest that it be placed on notice so that the appropriate information will be made public.

page 345

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister is no doubt aware that Father Francisco Fernandes does not spare himself in his attempts to publicise the injustices that have befallen his people of East Timor since the invasion by the Indonesian Army five years ago. ls the Minister aware that to still the criticisms of Father Fernandes the Indonesian authorities are now resorting to threats, intimidation and harassment of Father Fernandes’s family resident in East Timor? Is the Minister prepared to indicate to the Indonesian authorities that policies of this nature are not designed to increase friendship and goodwill between our two countries?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEThis is another matter that I will need to refer to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

page 345

QUESTION

SUPPLY OF LAND ROVERS TO INDONESIA

Senator GIETZELT:

– I ask the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate whether the Australian Government is currently supplying a shipment of Land Rovers to Indonesia. Is the Government aware that the Indonesian Government is proposing to use this aid for the purpose of further subjugating the peoples of East Timor? Will the Government, therefore, suspend the shipment until such time as the Indonesian

Government guarantees that the Land Rovers will not be used in the territory of East Timor?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have no information in relation to the question raised by Senator Gietzelt concerning the supply of Land Rovers to Indonesia. I will refer the question to the appropriate Minister after I ascertain who he may be. I will endeavour to obtain an early answer for the honourable senator.

page 345

QUESTION

DISCOUNT AIR FARES

Senator COLSTON:

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport been drawn to comments made on yesterday morning’s AM program that Mr Hunt personally intervened to cancel a 1 2-month-old agreement to grant discount air fares to delegates at a recent conference of the Australian Institute of Public Administration? I ask whether the Minister for Transport has responded to this comment by Mr Kenneth Wiltshire on the same radio program:

Mr Hunt is delighted to put the boot into TAA whenever he gets the opportunity.

Senator MESSNER:
LP

– I did hear the AM program to which Senator Colston has referred. I have no information from the Minister in relation to the matter which the honourable senator has raised. I will refer it to Mr Hunt for his comments.

page 345

QUESTION

CONSCRIPTION

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security, although it has other foreign affairs overtones. By way of preface, I refer to the Turacelli case in the electorate of Lowe, where I am the resident senator. According to that case children born in Australia of Italian parents are allegedly subject to army call-up at 1 8. My question is prompted by an earlier question in relation to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In the Italian context, as I understand it, the Minister’s Department has had talks with the Italian Government on reciprocal social security agreements. I suggest that the Minister consider whether any agreement with the Italian Government is contingent on that Government’s waiving any alleged obligations to have Australian children of Italian origin subject to conscription by an overseas government.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– It is true that my Department has been involved in talks on reciprocal social security agreements between Australia and Italy, and indeed between Australia and a number of other countries. Those talks are not yet complete and will be continuing. As far as I know, it has not been customary to include in those talks wider questions involving the relations between the two countries.

Senator Mulvihill:

– A sort of collective bargaining.

Senator CHANEY:

– I note the suggestion which the honourable senator has made and which by interjection he has put in the context of collective bargaining. I will raise the matter with other relevant Ministers in the Government, but I think the Government will continue to follow the practice of restricting discussions by the Department of Social Security to social security matters.

page 346

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– On 26 November Senator Button asked whether the Minister for Administrative Services recalled the former Minister’s stating that the Government would establish an inquiry into possible electoral expenditure and related matters. I am advised by my colleague that the answer to that part of the question is yes. He asked whether it was a fact that the Government had approached Sir Clarrie Harders to carry out this inquiry and that he had agreed to act in that capacity. I am advised that the answer to that part of the question is yes. He asked whether the terms of reference proposed by the former Minister in May are in fact to be the terms of reference to be given to Sir Clarrie Harders. I am advised that the answer to that question is yes. Senator Button asked finally whether it was a fact that these developments had taken place without any consultation with other political parties. I am advised in respect of this final part of the question that it is not the usual custom of this Government, nor has it been the custom of previous governments, to consult non-government parties on the establishment of inquiries or their terms of reference.

page 346

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) ACT

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– On 3 December Senator Kilgariff asked a question concerning Beetaloo station and the Ammaroo pastoral lease. I have some information concerning the Ammaroo pastoral lease which I can give to the honourable senator. I have received advice now that the land claim to which the honourable senator referred was lodged with the knowledge and consent of Aboriginal people in the area, including traditional Aboriginal owners within the Aboriginal community living on Ammaroo. 1 have also been advised by the Central Land Council that a meeting was held recently between the Aboriginal community at Ammaroo and the owners of the lease. A compromise proposal aimed at meeting some of the needs of the community and the owner is presently being considered by both parties.

page 346

PRESENTATION OF PAPERS

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Mr President, I table the 53 papers set out in the list which has been circulated to honourable senators. I seek leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard. This procedure is in accordance with the way in which the matter was handled by you, Mr President, on Tuesday. It proved to be the most satisfactory way of tabling the reports. The reports were then dealt with numerically.

Leave granted.

The list of papers tabled read as follows -

International Monetary Agreements Act - Annual report to Parliament 1979-1980- pursuant to Section 10 of the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947.

Defence Service Homes Corporation - a report on operations 1 979- 1 980 - pursuant to Section 50 of the Defence Service Homes Act 1918.

Department of Business and Consumer Affairs - Annual Report 1979-1980.

Prices Justification Tribunal - Annual report 1979- 1980 - pursuant to Section 35 of the Prices Justification Act 1973.

Industries Assistance Commission - Annual report 1979- 1980 - pursuant to Section 45 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973.

River Murray Commission - Annual Report 1980 - pursuant to Section 21 of the Commonwealth River Murray Waters Act 1915.

Industrial Relations Bureau - Annual Report 1979-1980.

Annual Return to Parliament of Persons granted Australian Citizenship- pursuant to Section 42 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948.

Interaction between Industry, Higher Education and Government Laboratories - A Report to the Prime Minister by the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC).

Christmas Island- Annual Report 1979-1980.

Australian Postal Commission - Annual Report 1979- 1980- pursuant to section 102 of the Postal Services Act 1975.

The Treasury- Annual Report 1979-1980.

  1. Multilateral Trade Negotiations - Bilateral Settlement with Canada.

The Law Reform Commission- Annual report 1979- 1980 - pursuant to Section 35 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1 973.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs - Review of activities to 30 June 1 980.

  1. Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee - Annual Report 1979-1980- pursuant to Section 30 of the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Act 1977.

International Labour Conference- Conventions and recommendations.

  1. Australian Telecommunications Commission - Annual Report 1979-1980- pursuant to Section 99 of the Telecommunications Act 1975.

Curriculum Development Centre - Annual report 1 979- 1 980- pursuant to Section 40 of the Curriculum Development Centre Act 1975.

Wheat Research Act 1957- Report for the period 1 January 1979 to 30 June 1980- Pursuant to Section 18 of the Wheat Research Act 1957.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 - Annual report on operation of the Act for year 1979-1980- Pursuant to Section 314 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Legal Aid Commission (ACT) - Third Annual Report 1979-1980- Pursuant to Section 97 of Legal Aid Ordinance 1977.

Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region - Annual report 1979-1980- Pursuant to Section 36 of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978.

Housing Loans Insurance Corporation - 16th Annual report and Financial Statements for 1979-1980 - Pursuant to Section 39 of the Housing Loans Insurance Act I96S.

Family Law Council Annual report 1 979- 1 980 - Pursuant to Section 1 1 5 of the Family Law Act 1 975.

Australian Capital Territory - Statement of receipts and expenditure 1979-1980- Pursuant to Section 10 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1930.

Australian Broadcasting Commission - Annual report 1979- 1980- Pursuant to Section 78 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1 942.

Education Research and Development Committee - Interim Annual Report 1979-1980.

Capital Territory Health Commission - Interim Annual Report - Pursuant to Section 72 of the Health Commission Ordinance 1975.

Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation - Interim Annual Report 1979-1980- Pursuant to Section 29 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977.

Australian Wool Corporation - Annual Report 1979- 1980- Pursuant to Section 90 of the Wool Industry Act 1972.

The Transport and Planning Research program - Report or Progress to 30 June 1 980.

Department of Transport - Annual Report 1979- 1 980- pursuant to Section 29 of the Air Navigation Act 1 920.

ACT Electricity Authority- Annual Report 1979- 1980- Pursuant to Section 33 of the ACT Electricity Supply Act 1962.

Text of a statement by the Treasurer - in relation to Interest Rales.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs - A report on Sea Transport Servicing the Torres Strait Area.

Department of Productivity - Annual Report

1979- 1980.

Superannuation Fund Investments Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation - Interim Annual report 1979- 1980 - pursuant to Section 162 of the Superannuation Act 1976.

Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation - Annual report 1978-79 - pursuant to Section 1 62 of the Superannuation Act 1976.

Committee On Disarmament - Geneva - 1980 Session - Report to Parliament.

Department of Social Security - Annual Report 1979-80.

National Energy and Advisory Committee - Annual Report 1979-1980.

Norfolk Island- Annual report 1979-1980.

Australian National Gallery Review- 1 979-1 980- pursuant to Section 42 ( 1 ) of the National Gallery Act.

National Inquiry into Teacher Education - Report - August 1980.

Australian War Memorial - Annual report 1979- 1 980 - pursuant to Section 48 ( I ) of the Australian War Memorial Act 1980.

Industries Assistance Commission - Report on passenger motor vehicles - Import restrictions and Quota allocation.

Australian Dairy Corporation - Annual report 1979- 1980- pursuant to Section 29 (4) of the Dairy Produce Act 1924.

Bureau of Agricultural Economics - Annual report 1979-1980.

Text of a statement on Australian Marine Science entitled Summary responses to Senate Standing Committee on Science and Environment Recommendations.

Subsidiary agreement between the Governments of Australia and Japan on Japanese long-line Fishing.

Australian Wheat Board - Annual report for year ending November 1978 pursuant to Section 45 (1) of the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1947 - together with a text of a statement made by the Minister for Primary Industry.

Remuneration Tribunal- Report and determination November 1980 Pursuant to the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973.

page 347

RIVER MURRAY COMMISSION

Report

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave - I move:

I want to make a few comments on the River Murray Commission report in reference to the Dartmouth Dam. I think it was yesterday that I asked a question of the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) about newspaper reports which stated that the first release of water from the Dartmouth Dam will take place later this month. The Minister undertook to get me the answer to that question.

First of all, having had a quick look at this report, I congratulate Mr O’Brien, a commissioner of the River Murray Commission, on the quality of the report. It is comprehensive and very explanatory. But a couple of things in relation to the Dartmouth Dam concern me. The first is set out at page 17 of the report under the heading ‘Commissioning of Outlet works’. Some time ago I posed a question about who was responsible for payment for the surge works on the Mitta Mitta River below the Dartmouth Dam where the hydro-electric scheme came into operation. The answer I got was that that was solely the responsibility of the Victorian Government which was the sole beneficiary of any electricity generated by the hydro-electric scheme. In the report, under the heading ‘Commissioning of Outlet works’, I find stated:

The operation of the high level outlet was satisfactory. Some cavitation and vibration has been experienced with the operation or the low level outlet. Operation at high discharges would require the introduction of supplementary air supplies. Further studies including model tests are being carried out by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation to find a permanent solution to this problem.

On the next page of the report, under the heading Works by State Electricity Commission of Victoria’, we find stated:

Construction of the power station below the dam has continued. The civil contract is complete and turbine installation is nearing completion. Work is in progress on the installation of the generator and associated plant.

It is expected that the station will be commissioned by April 1981.

I express my concern that if vibration is being experienced in the wall of the dam with just a normal outlet of water, once this hydro-electric scheme becomes operative there could be further problems. I indicate now that if any problems are created and any costs are involved in making repairs to the dam made necessary because of the vibration caused by the hydro-electric scheme, those costs should be borne entirely by the Victorian Government. I am expressing concern on behalf of the South Australian taxpayers who, under the terms of the agreement under which they were required to contribute a certain share towards the cost of the construction of the dam whilst deriving no benefit from the electricity generated, may be called upon to make a contribution towards the cost of any repairs that are necessary because of damage caused by vibration involved in the generation of electricity for the sole use of residents of Victoria, and mainly the Victorian Government. I place that on record. If there is any cost to be borne, I will be having something further to say about it at a later date. On page 1 9 of the report under the heading ‘Investigations and Planning’, dealing with the Mitta Mitta River, the following is stated:

Studies continued during the year into the effects of the operation of the Dartmouth project on the Mitta Mitta River and its Hood plain. A paper on the operation of the Dartmouth Project was distributed to landholders and other interested people.

To the best of my knowledge that paper has not been tabled in this Parliament for the information of interested members of parliament. I request the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), who is at the table, to make some move to ensure that that paper is available to members of parliament who have a very deep interest in the operation of the Dartmouth Dam and any damage that may be caused by surge work on the Mitta Mitta. I know that people living on the Mitta Mitta are also very concerned about it. If no other honourable senator wants to speak to this report, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 348

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BUREAU

Report

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– by leave - I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 348

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL COMMISSION

Report

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– by leave - I move:

I seek leave for the continuation of remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 348

LAW REFORM COMMISSION

Report

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– by leave - I move:

I wish to make several short remarks. This report is further testimony to the expertise and the very substantial contribution to the life of this nation which the Law Reform Commission has made despite the enormous handicaps in respect of its staffing under which it continues to labour, lt is also testimony, it must be said, to the indifference of this Government to the work of the Commission and indeed to the whole process of law reform of this country. This indifference is perhaps made clearest in Chapter 3 of the report which sets out in tabular form the fate of all the substantive reports of the Commission which have been tabled in this Parliament since the Commission’s inception in 1975.

The record is a sorry one. Eleven major reports have been prepared and only two of those so far have been implemented. I will go through them quickly: The Complaints Against Police report 1975- no action yet taken despite an inordinate series of promises by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), including some made as recently as the last week or so, that legislation would be introduced. We still have not seen it. The Criminal Investigation report of 1975 - emasculated but still under consideration. The Alcohol, Drugs and Driving report of 1976 has been implemented in the Australian Capital Territory. The Insolvency report of 1977 - very partially implemented as to one provision in a piece of legislation earlier this year, but overwhelmingly still under consideration. The Tissue Transplants report of 1977 - implemented in the Australian Capital Territory and indeed in some States as model legislation. The second report on Complaints Against Police in 1978 - no action. The Unfair Publication report of 1979 - no action. The Privacy report of 1979 - no action. The Lands Acquisition report of April 1980 - no action; still under consideration. The Sentencing report of May this year, six months ago - no action; still under consideration. The Insurance Agents and Brokers report of as recently as September of this year - no action yet, which perhaps could be aniticipated

The basic problem remains that the Government is simply not willing to accept the quality of the Commission members and their staff and the elaborate consultative processes of the Law Reform Commission which involve, on a scale unprecedented in any other country, incredible consultation with relevant interests in the community and the formulation of proposals which reflect a very careful analysis and balancing of those interests. The reports which are produced in the draft legislation associated with them represent invariably the best possible accommodation of those competing interests and ideas. There ought to be a very substantial onus of justification upon the Government for refusing to adopt the recommendations so emerging. That is not the way the Government has approached the activities of the Law Reform Commission. It has invariably regarded them as comprising no more than a report, like any other, to be fed into the bureaucratic machine and reconsidered endlessly with the Government imposing its own priorities, if it takes any action at all, on the result. I suggest that it is lime, as indeed the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs has suggested in its report on processing law reform, we adopted a wholly different approach to the admirable reports emerging from the Commission.

The only further point I make is that one recommendation of the Senate Committee in relation to law reform was adopted by the Government earlier this year and now appears in an appendix to this report. It is the proposal that the Law Reform Commission act as a collecting agency for proposals for law reform that emanate from judicial, academic, parliamentary and other sources from time to time. I am delighted that this suggestion has been taken up. The first manifestation of it appears, as I said, in the current sixth annual report of the Commission. The tabulation in this report is very short because it represents only a couple of months’ worth of suggestions in the latter part of last year. As a foretaste of things to come, it is yet another demonstration of the enormously valuable role the Law Reform Commission is performing despite all the handicaps which this Government attaches and continues to attach to its performance. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– by leave - I simply raise a point as to the quality of the discussion papers prepared and circulated by the Law Reform Commission. I believe more attention should be given by the Law Reform Commission to the possible effects on its standing of some of those discussion papers. I refer very briefly to one part in a discussion paper relating to privacy which has caused a great deal of concern within communities. 1 refer, of course, to that part which dealt with the interference in the rights of parents to have access to reports relating to their children taken by a recorder of reports at a particular school. This part of a discussion paper has caused a great deal of concern and, in fact, has resulted in resolutions being passed by parents and citizens organisations and parents and friends organisations throughout the length and breadth of Australia both in government and independent schools. I raise the matter here in the hope that the Law Reform Commission will have regard to the effect of some of its discussion papers on the quality of its own research.

Debate adjourned.

page 349

DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS

Review of Activities to 30 June 1980

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– by leave - I move:

I wish to make three brief observations. Firstly, it is unfortunate that this report is tabled in the Senate when Estimates Committee C finished its deliberations in October. I put it to the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack), who is at the table, that perhaps on future occasions arrangements should be made for the appropriate Estimates committee to meet again to study such reports. Immigration is a matter which deals with people and it is an area in which there should be ongoing supervision. Secondly, if the Minister looks at the current Notice Paper he will see that under General Business, item 7, 1 am again proposing that a Senate select committee look at certain aspects of immigration. A report such as this would be ideal material to be reviewed.

Thirdly, I put to the Minister the fact that the Australian Financial Review and other journals prophesy that the present proliferation of committees such as the Australian Population and Immigration Council and the Australian Refugee Advisory Council be consolidated into one. I make a strong plea that, if we want a bipartisan approach to this subject, we return to the principle that applied for many years when the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council always had Opposition and Government representatives. As a matter of fact, people such as Senator Davidson and the former House of Representatives member, Fred Daly, had long experience in this field. When the Whitlam Government came in - I was then Chairman of the Immigration Advisory Council - Opposition links with the Council were retained. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 350

AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Annual Report 1979-80

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– by leave - I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 350

QUESTION

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966

Annual Report on Operation of the Act

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave - I move:

I express my concern that when many reports are tabled in the Parliament we have not had access to them. Therefore, we have not been able to make any comments on them. The Bankruptcy Act report is most important to many people. The problem was highlighted again here today when Senator Messner answered my questions about the downturn in the economy of South Australia. Had we had this report before us I might have been able to make some comment as to the increase in the number of bankruptcies in South Australia in the last 12 months. Unfortunately, I cannot do that now. This matter will go on the Notice Paper and it may never be debated, so we have to use some other device to talk about those bankruptcies. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 350

LEGAL AID COMMISSION (ACT)

Annual Report 1979-80

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– by leave - I move:

I do not seek to canvass the very many issues that could be canvassed arising out of the somewhat tumultuous and controversial condition in which the delivery of legal aid within the Australian Capital Territory finds itself. I rise simply to make one point. It appears that the terms of all the existing Legal Aid Commissioners in the Australian Capital Territory have expired with the exception of Mr Justice Ellis, the Chairman, and Mr Peter Sharkey, the Director of the Legal Aid Commission, who is also a commissioner. The terms of the other commissioners - there is a quite lengthy list of them - expired in November. There has been no announcement, and certainly no gazettal, by the Government in respect of either their continuation in that role or their replacement by someone else. Indeed, there has been a very considerable degree of uncertainty within the Australian Capital Territory as to the whole future of the Legal Aid Commission. Will there be a commission at all? If the Commission continues to operate will it be in some revamped form? If so, what form will it take? Will it continue in its existing form? If that is the case, why have the commissioners not been appointed?

These matters are all of very real concern in the practical administration of justice within the Australian Capital Territory, not least because of the various controversies that are raging as to the costs of legal- aid delivery within the Australian Capital Territory. For that reason I regard it as most important that the relevant Ministers- the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) and the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Hodgman) - take on board what I have had to say in this respect and give the Parliament in the very short time left to it this year some indication of what exactly is happening. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 350

SUPERVISING SCIENTIST FOR THE ALLIGATOR RIVERS REGION

Annual Report 1979-80

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– by leave - I move:

I have had a very short time in which to glance at the report, but it does not appear to cover such matters as the breach of the dam that was built to contain the contaminated water coming from work at Ranger. So it does not cover any results of that breach of the dam, nor does it cover who was at fault in the dam breaching nor whether the Commonwealth should be taking action against the contractor for breach of contract in allowing the dam to be built in such a way that it could be breached. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 351

FAMILY LAW COUNCIL

Annual Report 1979-80

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 351

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Annual Report 1979-80

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– by leave - I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 351

CAPITAL TERRITORY HEALTH COMMISSION

Interim Annual Report 1979-80

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– by leave - I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 351

AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVESTOCK CORPORATION

Interim Annual Report- 1979-80

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave - I move:

I wish to make a few remarks not only about this report but also about some other reports. They do not always give the information which we require. Page 2 of this report lists the personnel of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation as at 30 June 1979, which was nearly 18 months ago. Page 6 lists the members of the Corporation and their terms of appointment. I notice that Mr Kerin from South Australia was appointed until 30 November 1980, as was Mr Seccombe, although I do not know from which State he comes. I suggest to the Government that when such reports are presented and there has been a change of personnel since the report was made a flyleaf should be contained in the report or some other notification should be given to the Parliament so that we know, without having to ring the Department, who the present personnel in these corporations are.

I wish also to make some reference to another corporation about which Iwill probably be speaking tomorrow. I refer to the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation. The personnel of that Corporation have been changed, yet the Parliament has not been notified of the changes. I understand that members of the Apple and Pear Growers Association of South Australia are in Canberra today making representations to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) about having an amendment made to the Act so that South Australia and Queensland can be represented on the Corporation. If I had not been approached by those people I would not have known that changes had taken place in the personnel of that Corporation since the last report was presented to this Parliament in May of this year. I suggest to the Government that some remedial measures be taken so that we are kept up to date in relation to the personnel of all corporations and boards. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 351

AUSTRALIAN WOOL CORPORATION

Annual Report 1979-80

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave - I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 351

TRANSPORT AND PLANNING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave - I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 351

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

Annual Report 1979-80

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave - I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 352

TEXT OF A STATEMENT BY THE TREASURER

Interest Rates

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– by leave - 1 move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

Included in the circulated list is the text of a statement by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in relation to interest rates, which appears to be a mystery statement. I was told by the Opposition Whip when I mentioned that I did not have a copy of it that he had been advised by the Government that it was circulated to members’ or senators’ boxes yesterday. If it was, I do not have one. My office contacted the office of the Minister for Finance (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) and was told that we should be able to get the interest rate statement from the Opposition Whip’s office and that Senator Guilfoyle’s office did not know whether it had any left. The Whip’s office does not have the statement. A few other offices have been checked also. Nobody seems to have it. I find it somewhat difficult to make a comment on this statement when I do not know what is contained in it and we are not able to obtain a copy of it.

Senator Archer:

– It would not make any difference.

Senator Evans:

– A voice from the backwoods.

Senator WALSH:

– Yes, from the backwoods all right. I draw the Senate’s attention also to an undertaking given yesterday by Senator Durack, who I understand is now the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, when opposing my motion to suspend so much of the Standing Orders as would prevent Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, the Minister who is supposedly representing the Treasurer, making a statement on the Government’s interest rate policy, whatever that is. Senator Durack said:

By tradition, Ministerial statements in this place are made by leave, and in fact arrangements are in hand for the Minister to make a statement on this subject tomorrow.

I draw your attention, Mr President, to the fact that the sheet showing the order of business of the Senate makes no reference to a ministerial statement on this matter by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. I must presume only that she is still ducking for cover as she has been doing all week. She and the Government are treating the Senate with contempt. Given the fact that the Minister continues to duck for cover on this matter and that it is unlikely I will have a further opportunity to comment on the Government’s interest rate policy, or lack thereof and the deficiency thereof, I intend to make a few comments now.

The first point I wish to raise is that this Government’s economic responsibility goes over one horizon as soon as an election looms over another. It had been perfectly clear for at least three months that the pre-existing structure of interest rates was untenable, that changes had to be made and that unless the market yield on Government paper came down the rates on the control sector would have to go up. Anybody who knows anything about the money market has known that for at least two months and probably for three months. What reaction did we get from this Government which piously talks of economic responsibility or puts pious references to economic responsibility in the mouths of GovernorsGeneral when they open Parliament? No action was taken because a Federal election was coming up. Even when that was out of the way, still no action was taken because the Queensland State election was coming up. Who dictates the economic policy of this Government? It is a bunch of rednecks in the National Country Party, whether they sit in this Parliament or the Queensland Parliament.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Walsh, you are referring in unparliamentary language to members of this place. I ask you to withdraw your remark and to use parliamentary language.

Senator WALSH:

– I withdraw the word ‘rednecks’ and substitute ‘economic backwoodsmen’. Incidentally, the other day somebody asked me what the word ‘redneck’ meant. It is an American term. It refers to rural poor whites from the deep south who live in economic poverty. That is one thing that sets them apart from their Australian counterparts. They are ignorant and dim-witted, if not actually mentally retarded. There are economic differences between those rednecks and their Australian counterparts, but in other respects they are very similar.

Senator Archer:

– You have a lot in common with them.

Senator WALSH:

– There is another one of the economic backwoodsmen. The Government’s policy was permitted to drift for more than two months for reasons of sheer political expediency pertaining not only to this Government but also to the Government of Queensland. This Government must he held in contempt and ridicule by the money market.

Senator Walters:

– Not by the Australian people.

Senator WALSH:

– The honourable senator was not game to tell them about the impending rise in interest rates before the election was held.

Was she standing up and saying: ‘After the Federal and the Queensland elections have been held, when there is nothing coming up for a few months, we will be jacking up interest rates on housing loans initially by one per cent and then by 2 per cent’? 1 do not think Senator Walters was talking about that when she collaborated with the Government in the deception of the people before the recent Federal and State elections. The rationale for the increase in interest rates on the control sector, principally on overdrafts and small housing finance which has been put forward by the Treasurer - not in the statements which have been presented here, because they have not been presented here, but in the statements which he has made and the answers which he has given to questions in the House of Representatives - is that given the market realities that yields on Government paper were running 2 per cent above yields on the control sector, the problem of attracting funds and the generally higher prevailing level of interest rates, financial institutions would probably be losing money in continuing to lend at the rate of 1 0± per cent. The Treasurer finally arrived at the conclusion which should have been obvious to any high school economics graduate.

Senator Archer:

– It is above you.

Senator WALSH:

– It is certainly above the honourable senator. The conclusion should have been obvious to any high school economics graduate; that in that sort of situation no money would be available for lending on overdraft while the rate continued to be controlled at that level and the market rates were so much higher. Finally that message got through to the goldfish salesman. He learned what any high school economic graduate knows, or ought to know, and what the Opposition had been telling him for several months. He stated: ‘We have to put up the interest rates on small overdrafts, otherwise the funds will dry up’. That seemed like a victory for economic rationality over the backwoodsmen, but then the backwoodsmen still got their oar in. The Treasurer added: ‘Of course, overdraft rates for farmers and businesses in drought affected areas will be held at 1 0i per cent’. He did not explain how the Government intended to ensure that money would continue to be made available to people in that category at a 10+ per cent rate of interest when, on his own assertion, it could not continue to be made available to anyone else. That has still to be explained.

That fundamental contradiction is the primary reason that the Minister for Finance continues to insult the Senate, shirk her duty and run away from this issue. That is the primary reason that she refuses to stand up in the Senate to make a statement on this matter. How will the Government avoid a withdrawal of funds for overdraft lending for what it identifies as a preferred group of potential borrowers - farmers and other businesses in areas affected by drought? That remains a matter for wide-eyed conjecture. Obviously the Minister for Finance has no idea how the Government intends to overcome that rather basic problem. Given the Minister’s performance in the last couple of weeks, since she became Minister for Finance, it is debatable whether her ignorance on this question exceeds that of the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party.

Viewed from another perspective, the statement which the Treasurer made initially on Tuesday night and to which he added yesterday appears to be a victory for economic rationality. It appears to be a victory of the redneck economics espoused a couple of weeks earlier by the Deputy Leader of the Country Party when he said there was no justification at all for increasing interest rates. He said that we have all this lovely foreign money coming into the country at a net rate of $500m a month - that was in October- and that we should shunt this into the banks to lend out on overdraft to keep interest rates down. At first sight, the change in Government policy appeared to be a repudiation of that sort of redneck economics. Then of course the contradiction was added and the redneck policy remains, although it is in a modified and completely contradictory form. The Government has said that the banks will be asked’ to make loans available on these terms. What assurance have the banks given that they will continue to make them available on those terms? If the banks are willing to continue to make them available on those terms to certain classes of what the Government sees as being more morally worthy potential borrowers - or whatever the Government’s reason may be - why could they not continue to make them available to everyone?

The Government has been an object of derision and ridicule on this question for several months. It will continue to be an object of derision and ridicule. The plain fact is that the country’s economic policy has been determined by a gang of four, the chief of which is a physiocrat-mercantilist hybrid, although without the hybrid vigour.

Senator Archer:

– That is a beauty. Can we have that again?

Senator WALSH:

– A physiocrat-mercantilist hybrid. If the honourable senator obtained a good economics dictionary he could look it up to see what it means. It is personified in Malcolm Fraser, without the hybrid vigour. Another member of the gang of four is a funeral parlour proprietor, who dabbles in monetary mysticism, and there are two other rednecks in the gang. The de facto government of Australia is this gang of four.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Effective debate in this place is best served by the use of moderate language.

Senator WALSH:

– Whether it is a minority or majority in the Liberal Party, the economically literate sector has been completely excluded from policy making on this matter for several months. It gained a partial readmission last Tuesday night. It got its foot in the door but instead of having a policy which is completely wrong, completely untenable and non-viable, as we had in the past, we now have one which is completely contradictory. The representative of the Liberal Party Treasurer in this place has no idea about the question at all. She is unable to answer any questions pertaining to this matter. She ducks for cover and refuses to front up in the Senate to do her duty either as Minister for Finance or as Minister representing the Treasurer. She obviously has no idea of what the Government will do and this is the reason she is ducking away today; this is the reason she is ducking for cover; this is the reason she is dodging the issue; this is the reason she will not front up in the Senate.

Senator MacGibbon:

– Mr President, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to Standing Order 418. The honourable senator has persistently attacked the character of the Minister.

The PRESIDENT:

– I cannot sustain your point of order.

Senator McLaren:

– Mr President, on the same point of order–

The PRESIDENT:

– I am ruling on the point of order immediately. I cannot sustain the point of order. Criticisms of Ministers are allowed under our procedures and the Standing Orders but the criticism has to be couched in parliamentary language and should not contain imputations or reflections on members.

Senator McLaren:

– Mr President, I now raise a point of order. I refer back to 1975 when Ministers of the Whitlam Labor Government, including the Prime Minister, were repeatedly accused by innuendo in speeches and in substantive motions of being corrupt.

The PRESIDENT:

– What is your point of order?

Senator McLaren:

– My point or order is that the precedent has been set by members on the opposite side. I have drawn your attention to it before. When divisions have been taken you, Sir, have voted on six occasions for the very words being used in this Parliament. Members on this side do not now make false accusations. What Senator Walsh is saying is the absolute truth. Members on the opposite side are raising points of order in an attempt to prevent Senator Walsh from telling the truth yet when they were in the Opposition they uttered falsities time and time again. We had to cop it but those people opposite cannot cop it.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order.

Senator WALSH:

– The plain fact is that the Minister for Finance is neglecting her duty, her obligations, her responsibilities as the Minister for Finance and as the Minister representing the Treasurer. She continues to treat the Senate with contempt. I can of course understand her reluctance to stand up here and defend what is an indefensible policy even were it not for her personal inadequacies in this subject area, as demonstrated by her performance during Question Time over the last couple of weeks. I know she will not front up here. I know she will not answer these questions, but for the record 1 want to put these two questions. Does the Government believe that in some mysterious way, that it has not yet explained, the banks, because they have been asked to make money available to a section of overdraft borrowers at 10+ per cent, will in fact do it? If the answer to that question is yes, why cannot the Government ask the banks to continue to make money available at 101 per cent on small overdrafts to all borrowers, not just to those whom the Government identifies as being morally worthy, for whatever its reasons may be? There will, of course, be no answers to either of those questions.

In passing I mention, without making a judgment, the principle of a government expecting financial institutions to carry out what the Government apparently sees as a socially desirable policy; that is, of asking, pressurising or coercing - however it plans to do it - the private financial institutions into making special concessions for particular groups of people. If that principle has been adopted by the Government we have advanced a good deal further along the road to becoming a corporate state than many people realised. There are three possible outcomes from the present fundamentally contradictory policy. Each is obnoxious. Funds will be completely withdrawn from the people for whom the Government says it wants to continue to have credit made available at 101 per cent - they will go without altogether; or they will be chased into the extremely high interest rates of the fringe financial institutions; or in some covert way, which the Government has not revealed and will not reveal, the Government will bring pressure to bear on the banks so that they will continue to make funds available to a section which the Government deems to be disadvantaged or something like that.

If a section of the community is disadvantaged the proper way to treat it is to take action overtly, I suggest by parliamentary appropriation but certainly not by bringing covert pressure, covert coercion, to bear on financial institutions to pick up something in order to save a couple of Ministers in one party in the coalition electoral embarrassment. It also raises another question. The Government says that farmers and other people who are conducting businesses in drought affected areas have been disadvantaged and therefore ‘We are going to ensure that they get money cheaper than any other borrower for comparable types of credit’. It says that even though the people concerned might have a net worth of Sim, or a net worth of $2m. The Government is saying ‘We are going to provide credit for these people at subcommercial rates by coercing the private banks or in some other way’.

The one question which Senator Guilfoyle was able to answer yesterday was: What action does the Government plan to take to compensate the unemployed person paying off a housing loan in a country town or in the western suburbs of Sydney, the western suburbs of Melbourne, the northern suburbs of Perth or any one of hundreds of other locations throughout the country that one can identify, who will be slugged an extra S25 a month because of the interest rate increase? What action does the Government plan to take to compensate the unemployed people in that category, the victims of the Government’s own economic policy, not of an act of nature, not of an act of God? What action does it plan to take to compensate them? Senator Guilfoyle, in reply to the one question she has been able to answer in a fortnight said, ‘None’. The unemployed do not have six representatives within the Cabinet.

Given the circumstances under which this policy - I would not say evolved - just grew, it is nol surprising that there was a good deal of confusion around yesterday, and some of that confusion still remains. The Reserve Bank of Australia was making one statement by telephone to a representative of the Labor Party about the magnitude of the increase in overdraft rates and the bank housing loan rates while the Treasurer was saying something else in the Parliament. According to what is, as far as I know, the Treasurer’s latest word on the subject, those rates will be going up by one per cent although they may at the discretion of the banks be increased by 2 per cent.

Another point from a different aspect relates to the freeing from control of the rates which banks may offer on deposits. Many people would support such a change, arguing that market forces ought to be allowed to determine what the banks offer on deposits, instead of government regulation. Indeed, many submissions to the Campbell inquiry have put forward just that argument. I make no judgment on whether that is defensible. The point I want to make is that the change could be misinterpreted as a move to enable the banks to compete on an equal basis with credit unions and building societies when they will not in fact be competing on an equal basis. The banks will be competing from a position of privilege. If restrictions on what they can offer as interest rates on deposits are removed they are not competing on equal terms with building societies and credit unions; firstly, because building societies, at least in some States, have their interest rates controlled by State governments; and, secondly and far more importantly, because there is a difference in the public preception of the security of the two institutions. There is a very good reason why the public should perceive that. The trading banks have lender of last resort facilities from the Reserve Bank of Australia. In other words, the trading banks cannot run out of money.

People may or may not be aware of the specific provisions in the Banking Act, but over many decades the public has been conditioned - it has been conditioned correctly - to believe that the trading banks cannot run out of money. Building societies could because they do not have that same lender of last resort privilege from the Reserve Bank which is available to the trading banks. So there is not equal competition. I have not noted any agitation on the part of the banks to compete on truly equal terms, either to lower the very substantial barriers to entry into banking, or to extending the ‘lender of last resort’ provisions to building societies and credit unions. The banks want competition but limited competition. They want to compete from a position of privilege. It appears that that policy has been agreed to by the Government.

Throughout this parliamentary sitting, this Senate has been insulted by the Minister for Finance. She has refused to answer any questions put to her on this matter, always falling back on the excuse, which any incompetent could use: ‘I will refer the matter to the Treasurer and see what comment the Treasurer has to add’. Anyone could say that. She failed to get any comment from the Treasurer, although she said: ‘We will see whether the Treasurer has any comment to add’. Either she did not tell the Treasurer or the Treasurer does not have any comment to make because she has provided absolutely no information in response to any of those questions, with the one exception I mentioned when she said that the Government will not do anything about the unemployed person who has just had the interest rate on his housing loan jacked up which will now cost him an extra $25 a month. The Government does not care about those sorts of people, but it will look after a few friends of a few Cabinet Ministers. It does not care about the literally hundreds of thousands of people who are victims of the Government’s interest rate policy and victims also of its general economic policies because they are unemployed. With that one exception, the Minister has been unable, or has refused, to answer any question that has been put to her. She has been either unable or unwilling to obtain any clarification from the Treasurer on the matters that she has said will be referred to him. Finally, and most reprehensibly - if I could borrow a word - she has failed to do what the Acting Leader of the Government promised in the Senate yesterday she would do; that is, to deliver by leave a ministerial statement on the Government’s interest rate policy. She is ducking for cover and continues to duck for cover. She continues to insult the Senate. If she cannot improve on the performance she has given in the past couple of weeks she is unfit to hold office and should be removed from office.

page 356

SEA TRANSPORT SERVICING THE TORRES STRAIT AREA

Report by Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– by leave - I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 356

COMMITTEE ON DISARMAMENT

Report

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 356

AUSTRALIAN DAIRY CORPORATION

Annual Report 1979-80

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

– by leave- I move:

I note that the report has not been introduced into the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 356

BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Annual Report 1979-80

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave - I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 356

LONG-LINE FISHING: SUBSIDIARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUSTRALIAN AND JAPANESE GOVERNMENTS

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave - I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 356

AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD

Annual Report 1978

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave - I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 356

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Report on Australia and ASEAN

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I present the report and transcript of evidence from the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Australia and the Association of South East Asian Nations.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator SIM:

– by leave - I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 356

ASEAN INTERPARLIAMENTARY ORGANISATION

Report of Australian Parliamentary Observer Delegation

Senator TEAGUE:
South Australia

– by leave - I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Observer Delegation to the Third General Assembly Association of South East

Asian Nations Interparliamentary Organisation, Jakarta, Indonesia, from 2 September to 6 September 1 980. The observer delegation consisted of three members of this Parliament, Senator Tate; Mr Carlton, from the House of Representatives, the leader of the delegation; and me. It was the second attendance for Mr Carlton and me at the ASEAN Interparliamentary Organisation’s Annual Assembly, the other attendance being in Bangkok in October last year. I am very happy to report to the Senate that the Australian observer group continues to be very well received by ASEAN parliamentarians, that is, the representatives of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. The continuity in our attendance had the fortunate aspect of refreshing and strengthening established friendships, and consolidating the basis for valued and useful discussions of matters of mutual interest to Australia and our five ASEAN neighbours.

The three members of the Australian delegation were grateful for the generous welcome we received from all of those attending this Third General Assembly. We especially expressed our appreciation to the President of the Assembly of AIPO, His Excellency Daryatmo, Speaker of the Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat of the Republic of Indonesia, for his kind invitation and for his excellent organisation of the Assembly; to the Honourable R. Kartidijo leader of the host delegation, for the warmth of his hospitality; and to Ny Lurleila Pakusadewo leader of the Assembly Secretariat, who ensured that we were well informed and made welcome.

In addition to Australia, observer delegations attended from Bangladesh, the European Parliament, Japan and the Republic of Korea. The Assembly was formally opened by His Excellency General Suharto, President of the Republic of Indonesia, at the Presidential Palace, and messages were received from the heads of state or government of each of the ASEAN member nations. Observers, including the Australian observer delegation, attended the plenary sessions of the Assembly, but not the meetings of the subcommittees. However, on this occasion an innovation was to invite each observer delegation in turn to meet for approximately li hours with the political sub-committee, so that matters of mutual interest could be discussed in camera. A joint communique was signed by the ASEAN delegations at the conclusion of the Assembly. A copy of this communique is included in the report that I have tabled today.

Most of the communique is devoted to the grave concern of ASEAN countries over the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. On Kampuchea, the General Assembly condemned the continuing military occupation by Vietnam, and the intransigence and obstinacy of Vietnam in ignoring international opinion. The serious effects of Thailand were noted, and full support for Thailand was pledged. On the question of refugees and displaced persons, the General Assembly drew attention to the practical steps needed to assist those affected, both within Kampuchea and in the surrounding countries. However, it noted that the prime objective of allowing displaced Kampucheans to return peacefully to their homeland must be pursued. On Afghanistan, the General Assembly called for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Soviet forces from Afghanistan. On trade matters, there was an air of hopefulness about improving relations with the European Economic Community, in particular, but a feeling of continuing frustration with Japan. A number of other agenda items referred to the desirability of greater cooperation between ASEAN countries on economic, social and cultural matters.

In conclusion I am happy to report that AIPO in Jakarta reflected a growing confidence among the ASEAN nations in their improved cooperation on a number of issues and in their greater capacity to gain individual advantage by presenting a united front to the world. Last year in Bangkok, Australia, Korea and one Japanese official were the only observers. Observers were present from only three countries. This year there were five observer delegations, and the increased Japanese contingent numbered nine members. Despite the wider representation of observers, we as Australians were treated as old friends, and enjoyed a frankness of approach and willingness to discuss delicate issues that underlined the value of our continuing association with ASEAN at a parliamentary level. Private members are able to raise issues in a way that a Minister or an official might find difficult. We recommend that our association with AIPO be maintained and, where possible, strengthened.

page 357

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Report on Australia and ASEAN

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

– by leave- I apologise for my tardiness in speaking to this matter. I expected some contribution from the Government side, and I was waiting for that. First, I raise again the question of the lack of funding for committees engaged in work dealing with areas outside Australia. The Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence came up against this problem, and through you, Mr President, the Chairman of the Committee approached the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to seek some funding. That request was disallowed. But the refusal of funds did not deter those of us who were able to make the time available to take a trip around the five member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations. I believe that exercise was extremely valuable and paid off very well. lt was very easy in Australia, particularly in Canberra, to get a whole multitude of people who were prepared to give evidence on ASEAN. But of course most of those people were Australians. The Committee perceived in its wisdom that it would be wise to go to ASEAN and find out what ASEAN thought of Australia. Because of that trip, Senator Sim, Senator Mcintosh and I obtained points of view that we would never have been able to obtain in Australia. We received information from the mouths of Ministers, leaders and business people generally throughout the ASEAN region. It proved invaluable. I again make a plea for the Government to reconsider its attitude to funding parliamentary committees which take on references which have areas of interest outside Australian territory, and to give some consideration to funding the travel of those committees.

One of the most beneficial meetings that we had was in a confrontation situation - I suggest a somewhat friendly confrontation - with members of the Indonesian Parliament. When Senator Mcintosh and I arrived in Jakarta, we were put under some pressure or attack by the Australian Ambassador to Indonesia, Mr Critchley. Mr Critchley was highly critical of the attitude of Senator Mcintosh and myself in relation to the Indonesian invasion in East Timor. He put it to us that we, and other people, had done irreparable damage to Australia’s relationship with Indonesia because of our attitude on East Timor. I say quite frankly and openly that in my view Mr Critchley has been abroad for so long, and in the Indonesian region in particular, that he now sees issues such as this with Indonesian rather than Australian eyes. I do not say that unkindly. I think that can happen to the best of us who may be placed in that position.

In the rather long discussions that Senator Sim, Senator Mcintosh and I had with 12 or 14 members of the Indonesian Parliament we thrashed out the East Timor issue, and in general I believe that we agreed to disagree. No punches were pulled. It was a hard, sometimes bitter argument, but we put our point and they put theirs. That is the sort of thing which I believe will in the long term do only good. I should like to contrast what went on, apparently behind the scenes, in 1974 and 1975. 1 quote briefly from an article by Bruce Juddery in relation to the recent book banning exercise that this Government has conducted in this country. In the Canberra Times of 19 November of this year, Juddery stated:

One of the learned counsel who appeared before Mr Justice Mason last week remarked that, in the early stages of the East Timor affair, soon after the April 1 974 Portuguese coup, ‘public servants were advising the Foreign Affairs Minister that, in dealing with the Indonesians, the truth was the last thing to be used’.

We all recognise that diplomats are sent abroad to lie for their countries, and I believe that some of them do it with a great deal of aplomb. However, in my view it is much better in the long term to be perfectly frank with one’s neighbours and, if one has a point of view to express, one should express it and cop the opposite point of view. We should be honest and frank and not go behind people’s backs with our opinions, as I believe some people correctly suggest has been done in this instance. Juddery went on to state:

Australian diplomats, in Lisbon and in Canberra, knew that this was nonsense.

That is in relation to the Indonesian line that because the Portuguese Government had gone Left there was the potential for a communist Portuguese colony in Indonesia’s region, that is, in East Timor. He continued that Australian diplomats took the view that:

  1. . for the sake of ‘good relations’ no attempt was made to disabuse Indonesia of this opinion.

Passively, by concealing the good sense at its fingertips, the Foreign Affairs Department encouraged the state of mind that ultimately produced the December 1975 invasion, which led to the slaughter of at least tens of thousands of Timorese, not to mention a handful of Australians.

I hope that in the future diplomats will be much more honest and fearless in their relations with other governments rather than their trying to tell lies or to infer untruths.

One other matter that came up for a lot of discussion with the leaders, particularly trade Ministers of the ASEAN countries, was that of access to Australian markets of goods from ASEAN countries. In my view, the Government of Malaysia made this point much more strongly than any other Government. Again, in sitting down around the table with the people concerned we were able to put the Australian point of view as frankly and as bluntly as possible. We mentioned the problems that Australian industry was and is having in relation to new technology, the problems that our society has in relation to unemployment, the closure of many aspects of Australian industry, the fact that people are out on the streets. After all those sorts of discussions were held, I believe the government leaders of the five ASEAN countries assessed that really Australia was doing quite well and that, after all, as we put to them, we are a country of only 14 million people and we could not really be expected to take all the goods that the machines in their countries could turn out. I believe in that respect the trip by members of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence was worthwhile. 1 think it was one day last week that Senator Missen in a speech made a plea for the lowering of tariffs in order to allow more goods into Australia. I do not know whether the honourable senator has given much thought to this matter; I certainly have since we returned from visiting the ASEAN countries earlier this year. From memory, the situation in Indonesia is that some 60 per cent of its workers earn less than $1 a day - wages are down to 40c and 50c a day and anybody who gets over the equivalent of $A 1 a day is very well paid. It seems to me that if the governments of the ASEAN countries are concerned about markets they have a great captive market in each of their own countries. If the wages of the workers of Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines in particular were doubled it would create a market, the demands of which the machines and factories of the ASEAN countries would take some time to fulfil. Let us be perfectly frank: The workers of Asia are subjected to possibly the worst of tyrannies that the world will see. They have no trade unions of any worth whatsoever, they work long hours, they receive no holiday pay and no sick pay. As I said earlier, if those governments, instead of criticising Australia for not taking sufficient goods, were to look at the situation of their indigenous people and were to lift their standard of living those countries could sell all the goods that their machines could turn out.

Senator Missen:

– Do you think you can pass the buck that way?

Senator PRIMMER:

– I suggest that it is one way in which they could alleviate their problems of oversupply. Let me mention aid. I know that I am taking up a little time in this regard but the question of Australian development aid abroad has concerned me for some time. To be perfectly frank again, the more I see of some aid, the more concerned I become. I cite a couple of examples. During our stay in Jakarta we were taken to Bogor to see the agricultural research project there. From memory, the Australian Government has provided something like $14m for this project.

Senator Mcintosh, Senator Sim and 1 spent some time there talking to the experts and the people in charge. We were assured that this research project was well worth while. The scientists and other people involved were working with the Indonesian peasant farmers and the Indonesian Government. They were working with locally grown crops and grasses, hens, pigs, ducks and whatnot in an endeavour to create higher productivity in the ASEAN countries.

I do not know whether it was Senator Mcintosh or I who somehow or another homed in on one aspect of this research, namely, the egg supply to the market of Jakarta. Historically, the villagers, the peasants, in and around Jakarta have been the traditional suppliers of eggs to that market. It now appears that, as a result of work carried out with Australian aid and with some other aid, the required improvement in laying strains in chooks has been made. As happens all too often abroad when aid is poured in, the scene now is that the wealthy people - apparently in this instance they are of Chinese origin - have moved in and established battery cages. They are now supplying the eggs to the market of Jakarta. In my opinion this is one example of the adverse effect of the so-called green revolution: The people for whom aid is intended finish up the losers. When I questioned some of our people there about the green revolution and the social consequences of it - it takes a while to get through to some of these people when one starts to question their motives or the way in which they operate; one gets an answer only after persistent questioning - one of them said to me: Well really, Senator, it’s our job to produce more food. That we have done. We are not concerned with the social consequences of the green revolution.’ I think that it is a tragedy when people go out and do a job but do it in isolation. Some of the tragic results of this sort of attitude are there for everyone to see in countries of the Third World or Fourth World, whatever one likes to call it.

Senator Mcintosh, in his usual diligent manner, uncovered another rather sad story in Malaysia in the State of Trengganu. For the benefit of any honourable senator who has never been to Trengganu it is the most backward State of Malaysia. It is the State which was hardly penetrated at all by either the Chinese merchants or the British Raj. Many areas of it are almost as primitive as perhaps they were 500 years ago. I think it was only by accident that Senator Mcintosh got on to this situation, but he certainly followed it up with a great deal of diligence. This matter is concerned with the building of a hydroelectricity dam in the State of Trengganu about 30 or 40 miles out of the town of Kuala Trengganu.

The feasibility study for that was done under the auspices of Australian aid by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. That Corporation did a feasibility study for this project in 1974. To the best of my knowledge, SMEC - the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation - has not within its ranks any people capable or qualified to carry out environmental studies. For that purpose the Corporation hires consultants from Australia. I quote from a document from the research service of the Parliamentary Library which Senator Mcintosh was able to have prepared. The document states:

A series of feasibility studies were initiated in early 1974 by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC) in association with the Malaysian government. These studies included consideration of the environmental aspects of the project but it does not appear that a detailed study was made of the environmental impact of the project on the lower Trengganu river and coastal zone before it was decided to proceed wilh the project. In 1977, after the decision had been taken to proceed, a more detailed environmental study was initiated and published in May 1978. This study indicated that the environmental impact of the project was likely to be extensive in a variety of areas, including fishing. However, the study stated that factual data on many environmental aspects of the project was very inadequate. It thus appears that the project was initiated without essential data on environmental aspects, including the possible impact on fishing, being available.

Later on the document states:

Volume 8 of the 1 974-75 feasibility study did assess environmental factors of the project, but it acknowledged that information was lucking. On fisheries, it stated on page 102, that very little information is available on the fish life in the Trengganu River and the upper tributaries. Although many natural varieties are present, these are not an essential source of food because most the people in the Basin have ready access to abundant sources of fish in coastal and ocean areas. However, such a larger river has considerable potential for fishing activities and the changes in the aquatic environment as a result of the storage reservoir will be quite pronounced’.

Sitting suspended from 1.1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator PRIMMER:

– Before the suspension of the sitting for luncheon I was speaking about the lack of a feasibility study for one of the Australian aid projects in Malaysia. People may well wonder what that has to do with Australians. There may not be many greenies or trendies in a place such as Trengganu, but one thing that I certainly perceived there, as I am sure did the other two members of the Committee, was that there was amongst the indigenous people who were to be affected by this hydro-electric project a feeling that they did not really want it and that it was not necessarily to their benefit.

The reason for some of the haste by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation in this instance was the wish of the Malaysian Government to get the project under way in time to tie the hydro-electric power station into the national grid by, I think, 1984. I am not really pointing the finger of blame at SMEC for what has happened, but I point out that there was some feeling among the indigenous people that all was not well and that they were going to be deprived of the traditional fishing and agriculture that they and their forebears had carried on for a number of years. It may well have been that in this instance only the older farmers were concerned. We did not have the time or the opportunity to talk to the younger people, who may have agreed that the development was good. I raise the point because if in the future there should be any problem with any facet of that dam, some people may point the finger at Australia and say: ‘You were partly to blame’. When we go into aid projects such as this it would serve us well to dot all the i’s and cross all the fs before we move in and start upsetting the indigenous people.

In the Philippines aid and education tie in together on this issue. I believe from my three weeks’ experience in the ASEAN countries that the greatest hunger in Asia generally is not a physical hunger for food. It seems to me that there is ample food in such countries. Whether every person has the financial means to buy it may be another matter. The great hunger in Asia is a hunger for knowledge and the great lack, in my view, in the countries we visited was the lack of a free education system. A couple of days ago - one day earlier this week - there appeared in the Melbourne Age an article by Michael Richardson from Manila. It was entitled ‘House of Sin seeks justice’ and pertained to an interview that he, Richardson, had with the Archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Sin. According to Richardson - and as we all know - Cardinal Sin has been critical of the martial law in the Philippines and of the Government’s priorities. According to Richardson, Sin said: . . too much money is spent on security and infrastructure such as roads and bridges while not enough is channelled into education and low-cost public housing.

The Government education system is very meagre, very poor. So the church helps educate the people. But our schools are dying because we cannot afford to pay taxes imposed by the State.

Development of the people is the most important thing. Governments come and go. People remain.

I think that is a very pertinent statement in relation to the situation in the Philippines. It is perhaps more pertinent in relation to Australian aid in the Philippines because over the years we have poured millions of dollars into the sorts of things which, according to this article, Cardinal Sin is condemning - security and infrastructure such as roads and bridges. We were told by an Australian in Manila that the only reason the Australian

Government has been able to get away with the massive development of roads in the province of Zamboanga was that the Filipinos, whom he reckoned were fairly light fingered, could not pick up a reinforced concrete road and cart it away and that if they did it would not be of much use to them. I suggest that what Cardinal Sin has said in this instance is very pertinent.

The Committee took evidence from some of the non-government aid people to the effect that whilst it looked good on a map from the Australian or Marcos government’s point of view to see this large expanse of concrete road pushing into new areas, it was not all that good for a Muslim freedom fighter, an anti-Marcos rebel or someone like that. However, it was conceded that the Australians who were conducting this operation had talked to such people and went about their work without fear of being shot at by snipers or guerrilla fighters.

On the last day that we were there I was approached by one of the aid people at our embassy in Manila who put to me that in the Filipino education system there was a great dearth of technical manuals. He asked me to take the matter up when I came back to Australia. We have spent millions of dollars on aid in the Philippines. Here was something so simple that even I could get it off the ground. This gentleman told me that technical manuals for motor mechanics in the Philippines were almost 20 years old and that students trying to learn about motor vehicles, motor cars in general, were using outdated manuals. He said that if Australia could be responsible for placing updated manuals in technical schools in the Philippines our stakes would rise no end. On returning home I made inquiries. I found, firstly, that our aid people are loth to send secondhand material by way of aid, and one can accept that. After further ferreting around I found in the Victorian Education Department a gentleman who some years ago worked as a Colombo Plan teacher in, from memory, Singapore or Kuala Lumpur. He found exactly the same problem there 1 0 years ago and set about to draw up his own manuals. To be perfectly frank, he admits that they are fairly rough because of the conditions under which they were produced. They consist of roneoed instruction sheets on everything one would want to learn about motor vehicles. They are in three categories - year 1, year 2 and year 3.

With the help of our aid people in Canberra, whom I salute, contact was made with the Philippines Government. The last correspondence I had from our aid people stated that the knot had almost been tied. At a cost to Australia of about $3,000 there is potential to put those manuals into every technical college or school in the Philippines. Why has someone not done that previously? Why did it take a fool like me to carry out that operation? How much have we spent over the years on grandiose aid for the building of Taj Mahals for despotic rulers, in many cases, and on building things that mean very little to the peasants of the Third World, when something so simple can be done at a cost so small that the mind boggles? I suggest that is something that the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence may think about over the Christmas break. I believe that the Committee should adopt a reference for a thorough, in-depth look at all Australian aid.

page 361

TABLING OF REPORTS

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Finance · Victoria · LP

– by leave - I wish to make a short statement regarding some comments made prior to the suspension of the sitting for lunch on the tabling of reports. I understand that statement number 35 was not circulated to honourable senators through the Table Office. There was a misunderstanding of procedures. I understand the statement has now been made available to honourable senators.

page 361

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MEXICO AND CANADA

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– by leave - I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the United States of America and Mexico and a visit to Canada in July 1 980. 1 seek leave to make some comments in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

Senator ARCHER:

– In July this year I was very pleased to be, with Senator Colston, a member of an official Australian parliamentary delegation to the United States of America and Mexico, and, with two other members of the delegation, to accept an invitation to Canada from CANADAIR Pty Ltd. We made a very extensive tour of the United States of America, Mexico and Canada within 22 days. This necessitated a most rigid timetable, limiting the depth of the delegation’s assessments in many cases. However, several impressions were gained quite strongly during the delegation’s visit. It would be reasonable if, on future occasions, fewer miles and greater depth were considered for such tours.

One of the impressions that emerged most strongly and continually, both in the United

States and Mexico, was the profitable contact possible at the legislator to legislator level. We realise that a lot of work is done at the diplomatic and ministerial levels. We found that once we were able to come face to face with other members of Parliament we made more ground than we had previously made. We are all inclined to believe that even in countries such as the United States, which has a similar system to ours, the principle is the same. We soon found that that was not the case. Of course, when we went to Mexico we found the situation was very considerably different. However, we appreciated the way we were able to have discussions with members of Parliament in that country and to discuss subjects of mutual interest.

One particularly interesting case from my own point of view was that, when we were visiting the parliamentary headquarters of the American Government, we were able to meet members of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs “Committee and Senator Percy. We discussed the restriction of trade in Australian opiates. Having been a poppy -grower myself at one stage, I was most interested to talk to the people who have been making the decisions. They had never been to Australia and had never spoken to any poppy growers- nor to any members of Parliament in the country affected by their decisions. We were able to form a strong and sound relationship and to have a very interesting discussion. After talking to us, the Committee members’ views on the position changed quite a lot. In the past they had simply accepted the advice that had been handed down by their own officers.

As a result of that visit I was able to arrange for the President of the Tasmanian Poppy Growers Association, Bill Casimaty to meet both the members of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee and Senator Percy’s personal staff. Mr Casimaty was able to follow the matter through. He was very happy with the improvement in the relationship that had been achieved. I believe that is typical of the sorts of improvements we can achieve if we are able to meet and talk with the people involved. One of the recommendations in the report is that a legislator to legislator level of discussion should be encouraged. We felt that there was a tremendous amount of scope for improvement and extension of the relationship with Mexico, both on a trading and political level. We hope that this will be expanded. We would very much like to see a Mexican delegation invited to Australia and to participate in some form of entertainment for such a delegation.

Throughout the visit the delegation met with extreme warmth, goodwill, friendship and a great desire from people to know more about Australia. I express my personal thanks to our various hosts for their generosity and courtesy. I thank those who organised the program, particularly the officials in the host countries, and the various officials in Australia and abroad who made the visit possible.! mention, in particular, Ian Harris of the parliamentary staff who very conscientiously and efficiently attended to the duties, whims and fancies of the members of the delegation during and after the tour. Finally, I place on record my tribute and, I believe, that of the other members, to Ian Wilson who acted as chairman for his leadership and his magnificent ability at all times to get across to the people with whom we met and dealt. We were an extremely happy group of people. I could not wish to travel with a more compatible group. I believe that the results that we achieved were of importance. I hope they will be of long standing.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– by leave - I am pleased to be able to speak to the report of an Australian parliamentary delegation to the United States of America, Mexico and Canada, which took place between 4 and 25 July 1980. It would not be possible for me to do justice to the report if I tried to summarise it. However, I shall, highlight some of the more important factors. In part, recommendation (1) states:

  1. . there is significant value of continuing contact at the legislator to legislator level; problems that might not be solved at other levels may be solved as a result of Member exchanges. Consequently, exchanges between Parliamentarians should be encouraged.

Senator Archer has already pointed out some of the problems that were solved through his visit. Not only may problems be solved as a result of such exchanges but also members who are able to meet with their counterparts in other nations invariably make a better contribution in the Parliament as a result of their visits. Recommendation (7) of the report states:

That investigations be carried out to assess the applicability of CL21 5 aircraft to Australia as a multi-purpose craft.

The leader of the delegation, Mr Wilson, Senator Archer, the Secretary, Mr Harris and I had the opportunity to visit the CANADAIR Pty Ltd production centre in Montreal. Mr Wilson, Mr Harris and I were able to observe a demonstration of the CL215 on St Lawrence River in Quebec City. I was quite impressed with the capability of this aircraft, in particular its fire-fighting capacity. I have some doubts about its total suitability for fighting Australian bush fires, but I am disappointed that no trials have yet been conducted in Australia. I acknowledge that if trials were done here they could dispel my doubts about whether the aircraft was suitable for bush fire-fighting in Australian conditions. I was led to believe, when I was in Canada, that trials would be carried out in Australia this summer. My inquiries suggest that, apparently, arrangements could not be completed and that the aircraft would not be here for trials this summer, but it might be here next summer. I certainly look forward to it being here so that we can see how this aircraft operates in Australian conditions. I fully support recommendation 7 in this report.

Recommendation 8 states:

That for future delegations an itinerary be finalised and issued before the delegation departs Australia, and be adhered to as closely as possible . . .

When the delegation members left Australia they had only a vague idea of the program and of the various places that they were to visit. Senator Archer has already said that perhaps on future delegations the delegations try to travel shorter distances and therefore see more of the places that they visit. A complete itinerary would have allowed members to profit even more than they did from the visit. A complete itinerary, too, would have saved an embarrassing situation which arose for some members, and I think it is pertinent that I outline this situation. On arrival in Chicago, members found that a visit to a nuclear power station and an associated plant had been arranged for them. To arrange such a visit without first discussing this proposal with members showed a complete lack of awareness of the political sensitivity within Australia of the subject of nuclear power.

One member of the delegation refused to go on the visit, and another was not on the delegation at that time. If I had known that I was to be frisked before entry to the first plant I would not have gone. I went on the assumption that the delegation was the guest of the electric company in question. I did not accept the indignity of being frisked at the second plant, and the numbers of the delegation, therefore, were even further reduced. The embarrassment on both sides could have been avoided if members of the delegation were made aware beforehand of the nature of the visit which was planned and that their status as members of the Australian Parliament meant nothing to their hosts. By ‘hosts’ I mean the particular company, not the Australian officials or the United States officials who were assisting us. Recommendation 9 states:

That official itineraries not encompass large periods of unscheduled, unescorted free time.

This recommendation speaks for itself if one reads page 1 7 of the report in conjunction with it. It was a disappointment to me that the Consul-General in New York, who was a member of the thirtyfirst Parliament, the same Parliament from which the members of this delegation were drawn, left members floundering at the weekend in an unfamiliar city.

Finally, I should like to make two remarks. Firstly, I travelled on many airlines whilst I was overseas; from Sydney to San Francisco, and from London to Brisbane I flew Qantas Airways Ltd. Between San Francisco and London I flew on a variety of airlines and on a variety of aircraft. It is a pleasure to be able to say that Australia’s airline provided a service second to none. Qantas may be having some financial difficulties at the moment, but they are in no way connected with the airline’s service to its passengers.

Just as the good wine was left to the last at the wedding in Cana in Galilee, I wish to pay special tribute to Mr Ian Harris, the Secretary of the delegation. Mr Harris is the Acting Clerk Assistant in the House of Representatives. The tasks he performed varied considerably from those which normally would be expected to be undertaken by a junior clerk to those of a senior diplomat. On all occasions his assistance to the delegation was outstanding. The value of the work which is carried out by a delegation’s secretary is not often realised, and I feel that I must place on record my appreciation of Mr Harris’s assistance.

page 363

AUSTRALIAN MAKINE SCIENCE

Ministerial Statement

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– In my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology I present a statement entitled Australian Marine Science; Progress Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment. It is a response to that Committee’s report. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the statement which I understand is being circulated.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

Honourable senators will recall that the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment tabled its progress report on Australian marine science on 22 May 1980. That report has since been the subject of examination by the Government, and I am pleased to present the Government’s response to it.

The progress report contains 12 recommendations covering a range of issues of great importance to the development of Australian marine science. I should like now to comment briefly on the progress report, and to amplify the Government’s response to the major issues it raises.

The progress report urges the Government to accept the need for an expansion of Australian marine science, to develop national policies and programs and to extend the terms of reference of the Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Advisory Committee - AMSTAC - to encompass advice on the formulation and execution of national policy. The Government’s policy of support for national development of marine science is, however, clearly evident in the establishment of machinery through which it can receive advice on the development of policy and programs and in increasing financial support reflected in the present and past budgets.

Following consideration, of the report of the Australian Science and Technology Council - ASTEC - ‘Science and Technology in Australia, 1977-78’ the Government moved rapidly to establish the Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Advisory Committee - AMSTAC - as a standing committee of ASTEC, to provide an independent source of advice on Australian marine science. AMSTAC subsequently has presented advice to the Government in two reports - ‘Marine Sciences and Technologies in Australia: Immediate Issues’ and Priorities for Additional Research and Development 1980-81’. Taking account of that advice, the Government has significantly increased its support for Australian marine science. This increased support includes: The establishment of marine science and technology grants in 1979-80 with a four-fold increase in the amount of those grants in 1980-81; increased support for the Australian Institute of Marine Science; increased fisheries research, particularly in the 200-mile Australian fishing zone; and, establishing a centre of excellence in marine biology within the Antarctic Division of the Department of Science and Technology.

The Government also has indicated its continued commitment to developing marine science by: The decision to establish the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization marine laboratories in Hobart; approval of a new multipurpose oceanographic research vessel to be operated by CSIRO; and the identification and funding of priority areas for marine research including the Great Barrier Reef, the North West Shelf and Bass Strait.

The Senate Committee has recommended the establishment of an Australian exclusive economic zone as soon as possible. Australia would have substantially increased power to regulate marine scientific research activities in such a zone. This is a matter which the Government has under close scrutiny. However it should be noted that

Australia already has jurisdiction over its continental shelf and has recently declared a 200- nautical-mile Australian fishing zone. The Government will continue to monitor closely progress in development of the international legal framework of exclusive economic zones and will move to declare an Australian exclusive economic zone as soon as it considers it is necessary to do so.

We have noted carefully the Senate Committee’s recommendations concerning support facilities including ocean-going research vessels. Steps have already been taken to increase the number of research vessels, including the construction of a new one. Replacement of the fisheries research vessel Courageous through the charter of the larger Soela represents a significant upgrading of fisheries research capability. Consideration also is being given to the provision of some Antarctic marine research capability in an Australian Antarctic resupply ship. The provision of further research vessels is being examined by AMSTAC in the context of facilities needed to support proposed programs of research in the medium and longer terms. The Senate Committee’s recommendations will be considered along with advice from AMSTAC/ ASTEC and from other relevant bodies. The Government is, however, conscious that care must be exercised in building up support facilities to ensure that further increases do not exceed the ability of the scientific community to utilise them fully.

The Senate Committee has recommended that all CSIRO’s marine research activities be aggregated into one institute. The structure of CSIRO’s institutes is however a matter for the CSIRO executive to consider under the Science and Industry Research Act 1949 as amended in 1978. With the express purpose of strengthening effort on marine research the executive has recently restructured some of the marine research activities, bringing them into closer contact with scientifically related areas that are not wholly concerned with the sea. The new grouping will better enable marine research, which encompasses a very broad spectrum of scientific disciplines, to draw upon any appropriate area of CSIRO as the need arises.

The Senate Committee’s recommendations on the application of remote sensing technology and the need for marine taxonomy are in keeping with the Government’s support for balanced development of Australian marine science. Both matters are already being examined by AMSTAC.

In view of a recent decision that the Australian Institute of Marine Science focus its attention on research on the Great Barrier Reef, it is not appropriate for that body to undertake the task of developing a national marine science information system. However, collecting and disseminating marine science information on a national scale is a matter upon which the Government has sought advice and which, again, AMSTAC has under consideration.

In summary, the Government is pleased to note that many of the matters raised in the progress report already are either the subject of initiatives taken by the Government or concern matters which presently are under examination. The progress report is, I believe, a timely adjunct to the task of developing the Government’s policy of support for Australian marine science. The Government looks forward to receiving the final report of the Senate Committee in the near future.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– by leave - I move:

In moving this motion I act on behalf of the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment, Senator Jessop. We are happy with the broad response of the Government. I think the Committee was motivated because, basically, it saw an industry that had to be expanded in the light of the problem that confronts the Government of growing employment prospects in new areas. We looked to the ultimate when Australia’s fishing industry will be comparable with that of Norway. We are not unaware of its fishing fleets and of its cannery industry and of what they mean in relation to job opportunities. I think the emphasis on job opportunities is obviously a central theme that will confront Australia for the next five years. The value of this industry is that at the top level there is an outflow of graduates in so many professions by which the industry can be expanded and the talents used.

There was a second point. We do not want to see Australia with the added responsibility of the off-shore 200-mile fishing zone. We do not want to get into what I would call the equivalent of the cod war that involved Iceland and Great Britain at the United Nations, lt is one of those difficult problems. Australia, at times, will have to say no to some countries to which it has issued a franchise for their trawlers. At the same time, there is no doubt that, when Australia goes to the United Nations or enters into any public controversy, if it has not the technical know-how to counter arguments, it can be in an extremely invidious situation. 1 think the efforts of the Committee were largely due to the very skilled engine room personnel that it had. I refer to the first Secretary, Peter Dawes, who was subsequently succeeded by Peter Roberts, and the team that they had endeavoured to ensure that the Committee was able to examine all facets of the policy. It is true that we had further reference to this subject. One never achieves the millenium in anything. I know that the Australian Marine Science and Technologies Advisory Committee and other bodies of the Government have been given the imprimatur to be its advisers. One thing I could say on behalf of the Committee is that this is an area in which strong ministerial control will be needed. I know the Committee saw a parade of experts in every conceivable area of marine science. My comments are fortified by a remark attributed to a very sound Queensland Premier, the Hon. Forgan Smith. He always said that experts were people you kept on tap, not on top. I think the welter of evidence we received, even as late as within the last week, is extremely plausible evidence. At some stage somebody has to see that these blueprints are fully implemented. One or two Latin American countries with large coastlines were conned by overseas fishing consortiums. I know there are other matters in regard to which my colleagues will have much more to say. I know the industrialists on this side will say that there should be an area for the ailing Australian shipbuilding industry.

These are facets that I and a number of my colleagues on both sides have probed, and we are not fully satisfied yet. In light of the comments, we are pleased that there has been a response from the Government. We may differ in relation to emphasis to priorities. I say again: The litmus test of the effectiveness of the Government’s response will be whether we avoid having our fishing grounds over-fished because we had false information and, secondly, whether we are out-scored on technical advancement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 365

PRECEDENCE OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Durack) proposed:

That, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business take precedence of General Business after 8 p.m. on Thursday, 4 December 1980.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Young) - I am sorry, Senator. This motion has been declared formal. Therefore, under the Standing Orders, no debate can take place.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 366

DAY AND HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

1 ) That, unless otherwise ordered, on Friday, S December 1980, the Senate meet at 10.00 a.m.

That the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at S p.m.

page 366

TRADE UNION MOVEMENT: POLAND

Motion (by Senator Harradine) agreed to: That the Senate-

welcomes and supports the determined actions of Polish workers to establish an independent trade union movement in Poland;

attaches great importance to the continuing ability of the Polish government to negotiate a peaceful settlement of the complex issues without intervention by external forces; and

calls on the Australian Government to warn the Polish and Soviet authorities of the dire and world-wide consequences of the use of armed force against the Polish workers and their families.

page 366

QUESTION

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE B

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I report to the Senate a communication from the Auditor-General to Mr President. I lay on the table of the Senate a letter from the AuditorGeneral relating to a resolution passed by the Senate on 18 September 1980 in which he outlines the proposed procedure for complying with the Senate’s request. The text of this letter has been distributed to honourable senators for their information.

Motion (by Senator Rae) - by leave - proposed:

That the Senate concurs in the proposal outlined by the Auditor-General for complying with the resolution passed by the Senate on 18 September 1980.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The AuditorGeneral suggested that that part of the proposed investigation into the estimating practices of the Department of Industrial Relations and the Industrial Relations Bureau that was requested by the Senate would best be undertaken by the Department of Finance. The Department of Finance’s normal responsibilities in the formulation of the Estimates are, of course, primarily concerned with prescribing general principles of estimating as laid down in the finance directions and circulars. The Department also provides, through its central computing network, financial management reports to departments on expenditures and commitments. The utilisation of these reports and the adoption of additional measures to contain expenditure within appropriations are essentially matters for the department concerned. Having regard to the Committee’s particular concerns in connection with the estimating practices of the Department of Industrial Relations and the Industrial Relations Bureau, the Minister for Finance (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) is happy to concur with the Auditor-General’s suggestion. With the Senate’s agreement, the Minister for Finance will report further on the matter when the Department has completed its review.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 366

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition stating that Senator Evans has requested that he be discharged from attendance upon the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and nominating Senator Colston to be appointed to the Committee in place of Senator Evans.

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That Senator Evans be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and Senator Colston, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36a, be appointed a member of the Committee.

page 366

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Government to appoint members of either House as parliamentary secretaries to Ministers. TheGovernment believes that members serving in the role of Parliamentary Secretary could provide valuable assistance to Ministers, by undertaking as requested a range of duties including assistance with correspondence and other papers, liaison with other members of parliament, and meetings with delegations and clients of the department and authorities, and other representational activities. Parliamentary Secretaries will be able to play a very useful role, particularly in assisting to bring the views of others to the attention of Ministers. Ministers will of course retain their responsibility to the Parliament.

The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has already announced the Government’s intention to appoint the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon). Honourable senators will know that there have been occasions in the past when members have been appointed to somewhat similar positions. The Government believes that it is desirable that the basis for, and nature of, such appointments should be made quite clear. The Bill provides for appointments of Parliamentary Secretary to be made by the Prime Minister.

For constitutional reasons, the position of Parliamentary Secretary is not to be an office of profit. The Bill makes it clear that a Parliamentary Secretary is not to be remunerated beyond his salary as a member of parliament and it displaces the ordinary application of the Remuneration Tribunals Act. Clause 4 does enable a Parliamentary Secretary to be reimbursed such expenses as are reasonably incurred. The amount of such expenses is not to exceed such allowance as is prescribed by regulation or by the Remuneration Tribunal. The opportunity has been taken to clarify the application of the Remuneration Tribunals Act in relation to members of this Parliament who are appointed to non-parliamentary positions the remuneration of which is subject to the Tribunal. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 367

AUSTRALIAN WINE AND BRANDY CORPORATION BILL 1980

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Durack) 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 Durack) read a first time.

Second Readings

Senator DURACK (Western Australia-

Attorney-General) (2.55) - I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows -

Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Bill 1980

The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the replacement of the Australian Wine Board by the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation. This action is part of the process of review and modernisation of statutory marketing authorities with responsiblities in primary industry which has been proceeding for some years. Associated with this Bill are the Wine Grapes Levy Amendment Bill 1980 and the Wine Research Amendment Bill 1 980, which in essence provide for certain minor changes in existing legislation consequential upon enactment of this Bill. The proposals embodied in this Bill are the fruits of a series of consultations and negotiations with the main elements of the wine industry - wine grape growers, co-operative winemakers, and private and proprietary winemakers.

In recent times several factors have been making for change in the wine industry, particularly increasing investment in the industry by large public companies. Also, grapegrowers and cooperatives have been disturbed by the emergence in some seasons of problems in take-up of all grapes available. In this climate there has been considerable questioning of the adequacy of the Board’s structure to cope with the present-day needs of the industry. The Government therefore arranged early in 1979 for an industry working party, chaired and supplemented by officers of the Department of Primary Industry, to give consideration to the matter of board re-organisation. The working party’s conclusions were distributed widely with the industry, and industry comments were subsequently received by the Government and considered. As a consequence of that full consultation, the proposals embodied in this Bill have the general support of the industry.

The Corporation, like its predecessor, will have the power to regulate exports and have promotion and publicity functions in export markets and in

Australia. It will also have, as did the Australian Wine Board, power to arrange research into grape juice as well as grape products. In addition, it will have expanded power to engage in trade in the export field, subject to Ministerial approval, and will be able to borrow for that purpose under government guarantee, subject to the approval of the Treasurer. The Government will be looking to the Corporation to play a significant role, in cooperation with the industry, in developing and promoting overseas sales.

The Corporation will be composed of six representatives of private and proprietary winemakers, two of co-operative winemakers, four of the wine grape growers, a Commonwealth Government representative and a chairman appointed by the Government. Of the six representatives of private and proprietary winemakers, one will represent producers using not less than 20 tonnes but less than SOO tonnes of fresh grapes or their equivalent in a year, two will represent producers using not less than SOO tonnes but less than 10,000 tonnes, and three will represent producers using not less than 10,000 tonnes. The membership of 14 will be larger by three than that of the Board; one representative each of private and proprietary winemakers, as a group, and of wine grape growers, and the government appointed chairman. Although this membership will be somewhat larger than that of the usual primary industry marketing authority, it will constitute a fair balance between the differing interests in the industry. To avoid any potential unwieldiness, the Corporation will have the power to delegate any of its powers to an executive committee of five members. A similar provision for delegation to an executive committee was effective in the case of the Corporation’s predecessor.

Representation of private and proprietary winemakers will no longer be on a State basis, but according to the size of such producers’ operations. Greater representation of medium and large scale producers than of small has been provided. The traditional right of private and proprietary producers of wine and brandy to nominate their representatives has been maintained. Their six representatives will be chosen by Australia-wide elections in the three categories which I have mentioned. Voting in respect of each category’s representation will be confined to producers within that category. To ensure a reasonable geographic spread of representation, it is intended to provide, in electoral regulations to be made under the proposed Act, that no more than one representative of a category shall come from any one State. The inclusion of an independent chairman, commonly from outside the industry concerned, has been beneficial for other reorganised statutory marketing authorities, and the Government is confident that it will prove beneficial for the operation of the Corporation also.

Honourable senators will note that clause 21 requires a Corporation member, or a deputy of a member to disclose any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter being considered or to be considered by the Corporation or the executive committee. This accords with the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry on Public Duty and Private Interest. I also point out that clause 20 of the Bill provides that the Minister shall terminate the appointment of a member should he fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the requirements of clause 2 1 .

The jurisdiction of the Corporation will cover wine, brandy and rectified grape spirit. Although grape juice as such has not been included, the Government considers that the Corporation should not be prevented from playing a part in grape juice disposal if juice surpluses arise. Accordingly, provision has been included in the Bill for the making of regulations to confer on the Corporation appropriate functions in relation to grape juice manufactured in Australia from grapes grown in Australia. The Corporation will be funded - as was its predecessor - by a levy paid by winemakers and distillers on grapes crushed for wine or brandy making, or for the manufacture of grape spirit. The Government is confident that in this Bill the new Corporation has been given the structure to enable its members to build well for the future upon the solid foundations of the very considerable achievements of their predecessors. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Wine Grapes Levy Amendment Bill 1980

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wine Grapes Levy Act 1979, to take account of the establishment of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation in place of the Australian Wine Board. The opportunity is being taken of amending the factor, specified in clause 4 of the Act, to be used to convert quantities of grape juice to their fresh grape equivalent for levy purposes. This amendment reflects technological developments. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Wine Research Amendment Bill 1980

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wine Research Act 1955, to take account of the establishment of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation in place of the Australian Wine Board. The opportunity is being taken of making some other non-substantive minor amendments to the Act. 1 commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 369

AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVE-STOCK CORPORATION BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. 1 seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977. The amendments are designed to meet needs which have become apparent since the Corporation was formed on 1 December 1977. The first amendment I mention is at clause 7 of the Bill. That clause provides for an increase in the Corporation’s membership from nine to eleven. The number of members representing livestock producers is to be increased from four to five. The number representing meat processors and exporters is to be increased from one to two. This amendment will be particularly beneficial in adding to the meat processor and exporter expertise available to the Corporation. The additional producer member will make it easier to ensure that the broad geographic spread of sheep and cattle interests are adequately represented. The Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act established a producer consultative group and an exporter and abattoir consultative group to provide two-way communication between the interests they represent and the Corporation. The second of these consultative groups included both livestock and meat exporter interests. This proved unsatisfactory because of divergent interests of the two classes of exporters.

Clause 1 5 of the Bill seeks to amend the Act to provide for the establishment of two separate consultative groups. One will represent livestock exporters; the other will represent abattoir proprietors, meat exporters and processors. These groups will replace the present single composite group. The requirement in the present Act for an Australian meat industry conference is to be replaced by a provision for the Corporation to conduct such smaller conferences and meetings as it considers necessary. This change is supported by relevant industry groups.

The amendments I have mentioned deal with the adequacy of representation and communication. Most of the remainder either clarify the Corporation’s powers or relate to administrative matters. I will refer to some of them in sequence. Clause 4 seeks to amend section 10 of the Act which enables the Corporation to exercise controls over the export of meat and livestock through the issue of licences. These amendments are mainly of a formal nature. Clause 5 amends section 1 1 of the Act which makes licences subject to certain conditions, and enables the Corporation to issue directions to licencees in respect of those conditions. The Bill amends this section to put beyond doubt that the Corporation has the powers it needs effectively to regulate exports.

The Bill will amend section 14 of the Act which relates to shipping contracts, lt provides that a licensee entering into a contract for the sea carriage of meat or livestock in contravention of conditions approved under the section by the Minister may have his licence suspended or cancelled. This section as it stands at present voids such a contract. This is considered to be an inappropriate sanction which may affect parties other than the licensee. The references to contracts of insurance presently in section 14 serve no useful purpose and are a potential source of difficulty. The Bill proposes that they be deleted.

Clause 10 of the Bill seeks to amend section 22 of the Act to provide that the term of office of the Chairman of the Corporation may be up to five years rather than three years as at present. The Government looks for the Chairman to be a person of high calibre, well qualified by experience, who is prepared to serve in a full time capacity. He may be required to divest himself of interests, and to accept considerable uncertainty of employment prospects at the expiry of his term. For these reasons it is considered that some flexibility is needed in the term of office which can be provided in order to obtain the services of appropriate people.

Although it was necessary to re-appoint the existing Chairman for the three year term provided by the existing Act, it is the Government’s intention to convert that term to the longer term provided for in this Bill. I believe all these amendments, and others I have not referred to specifically, will improve the Corporation’s administration and enable it to further enhance its already significant record of achievement. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 370

REMUNERATION AND ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

This Bill was introduced into the Parliament on 1 1 September 1980, but unfortunately the parliamentary timetable did not permit its passage. The Bill is reintroduced now in the expectation that it can be passed during the present sittings.

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal in respect of the salaries and allowances of justices of the High Court and other Federal judges contained in the 1980 review by the Tribunal.

The new salaries and annual allowances proposed to be payable to the judges are to be found in the new schedule to be substituted by clause 5 of the Bill. It might be noted that the Remuneration Tribunal commented that the salaries which they recommended ‘have been framed so as to ensure that judicial remuneration is set apart from the effects of national wage case decisions and to resolve the inequities now existing’.

The other provisions of the Bill are concerned with the travelling allowances payable to justices of the High Court and to other judges. These provisions give effect to the recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal with respect to travelling allowances. For the first time, the Remuneration

Tribunal made recommendations as to the overseas travel allowance payable to judges. The Tribunal did not, however, recommend a rate of overseas travel allowance for justices of the High Court. The Bill provides, in sub-section (7) of new section 1 3.. that a justice of the High Court is entitled to an allowance by Way of reimbursement of the reasonable expenses of travel outside Australia and the external Territories in connection with the performance of his duties.

Apart from one circumstance, a justice of the High Court is not to be entitled to travelling allowance in respect of duty performed in Canberra. A justice of the High Court who now holds office and who does not have his sole or principal place of residence in Canberra is, however, to be entitled to an allowance at the rate of $7,500 per annum. Provision for this is made in proposed new section 1 3B. High Court justices appointed in the future will not receive this special allowance, whether or not they establish their homes in Canberra. A person so appointed will, however, be entitled to travelling allowance in respect of duty performed in Canberra at the ordinary daily rate until he establishes his home in Canberra or for three months after the date of his appointment, whichever is the lesser period. This provision is made in si.b-section (5) of proposed new section 13A. lt vill be noted that residence in New South Wales i adjacent to the Australian Capital Territory is i treated as being equivalent to residence in Canberra

In accordance with the recommendations of the Renumerat.ion Tribunal, the salaries and allowances established by this Bill are retrospective to 1 July 1 f JO. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motton by Senator Grimes) adjourned

page 370

MINISTERS OF STATE AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Bill (on motion by Senator Durack) read a first time. “ -

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. 1 seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

This Bill provides for an increase in the financial limit for the annual sum payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the salaries of Ministers of state, pursuant to section 66 of the Constitution. The Bill increases this limit from $350,000 to $400,000.

The amendment is consequent on the Government’s decision earlier this year to accept the recommendations in the 1980 review by the Remuneration Tribunal. The increases to ministerial salaries then agreed represent nothing more than the flow-on of national wage case decisions handed down by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. 1 commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

Senator DURACK (Western Australia-

Attorney-General) (3.0) - 1 move:

That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour of the day.

I suggest to the Senate that this Bill be debated cognately with the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 371

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT (WESTERN SAMOA) BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

Mr President, this Bill was introduced into the Parliament on 21 August.J980, but unfortunately the parliamentary timetable did not permit its passage. The Bill is reintroduced, now in the expectation that it can be passed during the present sittings.

In June last year the Government of Western Samoa asked the Australian Government for help in finding a successor to the retiring Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Western Samoa. Our two governments subsequently agreed that, Mr Justice St John, a judge of the Federal Court of Australia, would with his concurrence be made available for appointment by Western Samoa as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Western Samoa. Mr Justice St John was sworn into that office for a period of two years on 7 July 1980.

The purpose of the present Bill is to give statutory approval to that appointment and to ensure that Mr Justice St John’s service as Chief Justice of Western Samoa counts for the purposes of his rights and entitlements as an Australian judge.

Mr Justice St John is well qualified for this appointment. He has been a Federal judge for over five years, is a Master of Laws and, before being appointed to the Bench, was a Queen’s Counsel with an extensive practice at the New South Wales Bar. Mr Justice St John was actively associated with the Council of Civil Liberties in New South Wales, being a member of the Committee of the Council since 1963 and President of the Council at the time of his appointment to the Bench. In addition to his appointments to the Federal Court of Australia and the Australian Industrial Court, he is a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and of the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island.

I am sure that honourable senators will welcome the opportunity that Australia has been afforded, through the initiative of the Government of Western Samoa, to assist a Pacific neighbour with which Australia has a close association. This appointment follows in a sense the precedent set by the appointment some years ago of Sir John Nimmo as Chief Justice of Fiji.

The Bill before the House approves, in clause 4, the acceptance by Mr Justice St John of the appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Western Samoa. This provision is included to place it beyond doubt that acceptance of the appointment will not create any inconsistency with his Australian appointments. His entitlements as an Australian judge are to be preserved.

The Government of Western Samoa will pay Mr Justice St John’s salary for the period of his appointment and His Honour has agreed to waive any Australian salary which would be payable during that period. Clause 5 of the Bill provides that that waiver does not affect his entitlements under the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968 and the Judges (Long Leave Payments) Act 1979. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 372

CRIMES (TAXATION OFFENCES) BILL 1980

Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made to the Bill by the Senate.

page 372

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received message No. 20 from the House of Representatives requesting the concurrence of the Senate in the appointment of a Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. Copies of the message have been distributed to honourable senators.

Motion (by Senator Durack) - by leave - agreed to:

  1. 1 ) That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No, 20 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. That the provisions of the resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.
  3. That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.

page 372

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received message No. 21 from the House of Representatives requesting the concurrence of the Senate in the appointment, of a Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Copies of the message have been distributed to honourable senators.

Motion (by Senator Durack) - by leave - agreed to:

  1. 1 ) That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 21 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence.
  2. That the provisions of the resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.
  3. That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.

page 372

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE NEW PARLIAMENT HOUSE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received message No. 22 from the House of Representatives requesting the concurrence of the Senate in the appointment of a Joint Committee on the New Parliament House. Copies of the message have been distributed to honourable senators.

Motion (by Senator Durack) - by leave - agreed to:

  1. 1 ) That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No, 22 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House.
  2. That the provisions of the resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.
  3. That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.

page 372

JOINT COMMITTEES

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform honourable senators that, pursuant to the resolutions to both Houses appointing three joint committees, I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Button) nominating senators to be members of the joint committees, as follows:

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Senators Elstob, Kilgariff, Mcintosh, Martin, Sibraa, Sim and Young.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senators Georges, Knight and Neal.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE NEW PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senators Evans, Maunsell, Melzer, Missen, O’Byrne and Young.

In accordance with the resolution establishing the Joint Committee on the New Parliament House, the President, together with the Speaker and the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Hodgman), are ex officio members of the Committee.

page 372

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Motion (by Senator Durack) - by leave - agreed to:

That the senators nominated by the Leaders of the Government and the Opposition be appointed members of the Committee.

page 372

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Motion (by Senator Durack) - by leave - agreed to:

That the senators nominated by the Leaders of the Government and the Opposition be appointed members of the Committee.

page 372

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE NEW PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Motion (by Senator Durack) - by leave - agreed to:

That the senators nominated by the Leaders of the Government and the Opposition be appointed members of the Committee.

page 373

PUBLIC SERVICE AND STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Senator Peter Baume:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Leader of the Opposition · Victoria

– The debate on this legislation was commenced last night. I want to reiterate briefly the major points in the Opposition’s objections to this legislation and the views that we have as to why it should not be passed into law. I said last night that in what was described as a keynote speech on industrial relations given in 1975 the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) indicated two conflicting views about industrial relations in the one paragraph. Firstly, he said that industrial relations is about discussion and negotiation - the sorts of expressions which suggest a harmonious and conciliatory approach. 1 quote what he said about industrial relations:

Attitudes of mutual respect, of willingness to listen, to understand, to reason and discuss in an informed way, are essential.

In the same speech he went on to say that it was important that industrial relations law carried consequences and he proceeded to announce that the Industrial Relations Bureau would be the Fraser Government’s method of policing the consequences. Only in today’s Press we read of yet another indication that the IRB, which was the key second element or second prong in the Government’s industrial relations strategy, is to be abolished. Of course its abolition is quite consistent with the views expressed by the Opposition over a long period in this place and elsewhere. There are two points to be made about this. Firstly, the Government’s approach to industrial relations has been inconsistent and in a sense absurd in terms of the results which it has set out to achieve. More particularly, as I pointed out last evening, there have been several actions in relation to the Public Service since 1977, each of which had been introduced with high-flown rhetoric about what the Government would do to improve the industrial relations climate in the Australian Public Service. If the arguments which were put in favour of the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act of 1977 were valid there would be no need to introduce the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill into the Senate in 1980. Because that legislation apparently has failed by its own criteria, this legislation before us becomes necessary.

There have been three actions by the Government, all of which were designed to provide a better disciplined, more efficient, better working and more co-operative Public Service and all of them, as we warned, have failed. This legislation is in a sense, a monument to those failures because none of the problems of the Public Service is any nearer to resolution today than it was in 1977. So we of the Opposition say that this legislation is not necessary. The Government already has an armoury of weapons which it could use but which it has not used because it has recognised that to do so would be ineffective. In spite of that, the Government seeks yet another weapon in its armoury. The pursuit of this sort of legislation has not only been exacerbating in its influence on good industrial relations within the Public Service but also has received widespread condemnation both in Australia and internationally.

This legislation is not necessary. It is counterproductive in respect of what it sets out to do and it is in fact exacerbating the difficulties and tensions within the Public Service. It is calculated to destroy attitudes of mutual respect and a willingness to listen and understand and so on, if 1 might paraphrase the words used by the present Prime Minister in his shadow industrial relations capacity in 1975. The second point I want to make about the legislation is that contrary to the Government’s expressed view of a desirable approach to industrial relations, there was a total absence of consultations. This legislation is being rushed through the Parliament in this somewhat phoney session we are now having, this aberrant statutory two-week sitting of the Parliament, without any proper consultation with the appropriate consultative bodies, particularly the Public Service organisations concerned. They were informed first in June this year that ‘decisions in principle have been taken regarding these matters’ and that they would be informed of the details. We again draw attention to the absence of consultation as an undesirable feature, yet another reiteration of undesirable features of this Government’s industrial relations policy.

The justification for the introduction of the legislation is extraordinary and, with respect, quite misunderstood, quite misplaced. This justification is that as a result of the proceedings in the Bennett case in the Supreme Court of New South Wales the Commonwealth, as stated by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Peter Baume) in the second reading speech, was placed at a disadvantage in relation to its employees compared with private employers and also what the Government understands to be the common law position in relation to employment.

I shall reiterate very briefly what happened in the Bennett case. Mr Bennett was an employee in the Commonwealth Employment Service. He declined to carry out instructions relating to the preparation of certain statistical material on the basis that the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association directed him not to do that work, but he carried out all his other duties. As a result he was taken off work, without pay. His organisation took proceedings in the Supreme Court seeking a declaration that the action of refusing to pay him was not authorised by the Australian Public Service Act or by the regulations and it was contrary to law. The decision of the court in that matter was that the Commonwealth action was contrary to law and as the learned judge pointed out, if I may summarise his words, a code of behaviour in relation to employment conditions is set down by the Public Service Act, and by other awards and legislation, which makes, detailed reference to the circumstances in which an employee can be suspended or dismissed. The code provides obligations and safeguards and while that code exists and appropriately covers the field the action of the Commonwealth in this case is contrary to that code and not allowed by the court.

The Government also takes the view, as is set out in the second reading speech, that somehow as a result of the Bennett case it is put at a disadvantage in relation to the common law relationship of employer and employee. It is very significant and very interesting to find that a Minister in the Fraser Government talks about the common law employer-employee relationship in 1980 as the courts talked about it in the 18th century. It is very interesting indeed that the Fraser government’s understanding of the common law relationship in employment is that of the courts in the late 1 8th century and early 1 9th century. I will give one illustration of that. At common law one cannot suspend an employee, one can dismiss an employee. The courts have held that one cannot suspend an employee. One cannot keep an employee in limbo without pay and say: ‘You are still an employee but you are suspended by means of punishment’. There is no recognition of that fact in the present Government’s understanding of common law or in the attitude expressed by the Minister in his second reading speech. In political and conceptual terms what has to be understood is well illustrated in the judgment of Mr Justice Sharp, to whom I referred last night, in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission when he said:

The concept that it was management’s prerogative to use labour at will has had no place in western society Tor many decades.

I said last night that if Mr Justice Sharp gave a judgment tomorrow after this legislation presumably is passed he would have to say that this concept has no place in Western society, and has not had for many decades, except in Australia under the Fraser Government if one happens to be an employee in the Commonwealth Public Service of the Fraser Government. If this legislation is passed that situation will prevail because the concept of management’s having a prerogative to use labour at will - as I have indicated - will exist in the Commonwealth Public Service. So the justification for the introduction of this legislation is not only misconceived, it is, not to put too fine a point on it, primitive in its level of understanding, primitive in its concern to return the legal situation in relation to employment back a century or more. Throughout the history of arbitration in Australia, which has been defended by Liberal and Labor governments of all persuasions, the consistent direction in industrial relations and employment matters has been to moderate the harshness of the common law as it once applied. That is the whole purpose of the development of the arbitration system. Nowhere in private industry - or elsewhere - can one stand down or dismiss an employee without having reference to the fact that there may be an appeal if it were done unjustly, or there may be some award provision which means that some arbitral body or some independent authority will examine what the employer has done. The whole common law position is coloured by that situation and properly so.

Finally, the essential and very iniquitous thing about this legislation is that there is no appeal machinery. An employee who is aggrieved by the operation of this legislation, by a declaration by the Public Service Board that he should receive no pay because of some alleged misconduct, has no mechanism of appeal or redress available to him. The arbitration tribunals have been totally shut out.

Senator Durack:

– What about the Administrative Decisions Judicial Review?

Senator BUTTON:

– I do not think so, as the Minister will find if he reads carefully the legislation before the Parliament. If the Minister wishes I will mention that it is proposed new section 32a. In my view there is no redress for an individual employee against an action of the Public Service Board in this situation. No action for wrongful dismissal is available to an individual. He or she does not have the rights of a common law employee - of whom very few exist - who might allege suspension from employment. There is no right of suspension in common law. Effectively, this is a right of suspension of an employee.

In that sense it really turns back the clock. There is no redress to industrial tribunals. Contrary to the traditions and development in this country over many years it by-passes any notion of an arbitral system in relation to employment.

Another criticism of this legislation is that it is absurd and will not work, lt will not work because it will not encourage attitudes of mutual respect, negotiation, discussion and consultation about important issues of industrial relations, lt will not work because it is detrimental to the morale of the Public Service, lt will not work in terms of the legislation because, with respect, it is lacking in understanding of industrial situations. For example, proposed new section 32B excludes the operation of other laws. Proposed new section 32A deals wilh the so-called no work as directed - no pay provision. I will tell Public Service associations now that the way to beat this law is to work to regulation. One just says: ‘I am working to regulation. I will work ‘: accordance with regulations laid down by the I’ ‘lie Service as to how my work should be done resumably a superior officer will say: ‘My God! You are going slowly’. You are only going at half the pace at which you ought to be going. You do your work twice as fast’. The employee will then say: ‘I am working in accordance with the regulations; I am working in accordance wilh the law’. That is the area in which the dispute will first arise. The absurdity of this legislation will then become quite apparent.

There is a provision in another clause in this Bill which pays an additional allowance to public servants who recommend to their employers better methods of work. If the public servant goes to his employer and says ‘We could do the work much faster this way, or much more safely this way’, he gets an extra allowance by virtue of this legislation in the Senate. That is an encouragement for him to do it. If he goes along and says ‘This work can be done more safely this way’, he gets an additional allowance for saying that. If his superior officer tells him ‘No, you are not to do it that way, you are to do it this way’, and the employee then declines, he is putting himself in breach of this legislation and is subject to receiving no pay. I cannot think of the appropriate expression to describe the bizarre antiquity of this legislation in its approach to industrial relations problems, lt needs a Jonathan Swift to describe it. 1 have said, and wish to repeal- -taking upon myself for the moment the wisdom of Hamlet’s ghost - the words used in this Senate about the Industrial Relations Bureau—

Senator Peter Baume:

– Hamlet’s father’s ghost.

Senator BUTTON:

- Senator Peter Baume has a lucid command of points like that. If he could just follow what I am saying here it would be helpful. Hamlet’s father’s ghost is the appropriate figure. The words that were used in this chamber about the Industrial Relations Bureau in relation to this Government’s industrial relations policy four years ago will come back to haunt the Government in the next session of Parliament when it abolishes the Industrial Relations Bureau, as it will do. In spite of all the costs incurred in connection with tha* third arm of industrial relations - as it was described by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) when it was introduced, the thing which was going to do so much for industrial relations in this country - nothing has changed and, as a result, nothing is any better. Every political and industrial realist knows that.

Senator Hamer:

– Are you sure it was Hamlet’s father and not Banquo?

Senator BUTTON:

– 1 am sure that those points are of very great significance to Senator Hamer but they are not the ones with which I am concerned at the moment. We make the same comments about this legislation. It is illconceived, not well thought out, primitive, regressive and calculated to promote industrial trouble in the Australian Public Service, rather than to cure it. A loyal, efficient, dedicated Public Service is achieved only by being a good government. That is the essential problem which this Government has and which it has not been able to solve. When it gets back to solving that problem it will resolve many of the tensions and difficulties of the Australian Public Service; not by punitive legislation of this kind. The Opposition opposes the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Rocher) adjourned.

page 375

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 6) 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The Opposition will be moving the same amendment to this Bill as was moved in the House of Representatives. The purpose of that amendment is to have the Bill withdrawn and something more sensible substituted, or to have it dropped altogether, an option which, in common sense, 1 favour. On 19 August we were presented with a Budget which we were told ad nauseam was the most responsible and best considered Budget that had ever been presented. Six weeks later there were 58 amendments to that Budget in the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) which entailed either further government expenditure or reductions in government revenue amounting to something like $2,000m in total cost. Over the next couple of weeks three more amendments were added. About one-quarter of those 58 amendments were related to primary industry. All of them were either uncosted or dishonestly costed. Most of them took the form of deductions from taxable income and were therefore regressive. An important point, not often grasped, is that any concession which takes the form of a deduction from taxable income more than provides proportionately greater benefits to people with the highest incomes, given the same level of expenditure under the deductible item. Some of the 58 amendments which pertained to agriculture promised bonuses for waste and inefficiency. As I observed this morning, with this Government, economic responsibility sinks over one horizon when an election looms over another.

Many of those agricultural propositions are contained in this Bill, plus some others of a similar calibre, similarly ill considered, regressive and inefficient, promoting inefficiencies which were not mentioned in the Prime Minister’s policy speech. The first relates to the provision of 20 per cent depreciation on plant purchased for use in agriculture, fishing and forestry. This provision was dishonestly costed at $7m in the Prime Minister’s policy speech. A conservative estimate of the cost to revenue of this proposition is $20m. As a general principle, items for tax purposes ought to be depreciated over the working life of the plant purchased. That is a long-accepted principle of taxation, lt is one which is logically based and one which ought to be adhered to unless very good reasons for deviating from it are given. In this instance no such reasons have been given.

The second reading speech of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Peter Baume) simply set out the facts. No argument was offered as to why this should be done, and no justification whatsoever was given. There was no speculation on whether the level of investment in plant and equipment on the farms was above, below or right on the optimum economic level in terms of resource allocation. There is a very good reason for that. It is not because there is no evidence. It is because the evidence which does exist shows quite decisively that farmers have already overinvested in plant and equipment and that, therefore, anything which encourages them to invest more heavily than they have in the past would lead to a further misallocation of funds which could be invested. I will not leave that charge hanging in the air.

Comparative farm analyses, that is, the breakdown of numerous statistical variables from actual farm records of farmers operating in a similar economic environment, which have been conducted by private firms and in some cases by semipublic institutions such as universities, at least since the early 1960s in every case that I have seen - I have contacted people who are working and servicing agriculture as recently as last Tuesday, accountants who have agricultural clients and who are familiar with this area and who have up-to-date figures on this sort of thing - show an enormous variation between the level of investment in plant and equipment per unit of area on comparable farms. The range is from about four to one. If we select at random a group of comparable farms, the lowest investment on any of those farms will be about $1 per unit of area, and the highest about $4. If that great variability in the level of investment is then checked against any other index of efficiency, but specifically against net income per acre, specifically against return on capital invested, the level of production per unit of area or even, ironically, plant maintenance cost, there is absolutely no correlation between the level of investment in plant and any index of technical or economic efficiency. They are independent variables.

The only logical conclusion which can be drawn from those facts is that there is already a serious over-investment, a serious misallocation of funds in excessive investment in plant and equipment in agriculture. The Government presents no rationale. There is only one rationale. Actually it is not a rationale. There is one reason for it. Economic policy is being thrust yet again upon the economically literate section of the Liberal Party - I do not know whether it is the minority or the majority - by that combination of the economic backwoodsmen of the National Country Party, supported, abetted, or even led perhaps by the Prime Minister who actually belongs in the National Country Party instead of the Liberal Party. Any additional incentive which these measures will provide to increase investment in plant and equipment on farms will lead to a further misallocation of investment funds. It will do so, as I mentioned earlier, in a highly regressive way. The farmer with a taxable income of above $35,000 will receive a tax equivalent subsidy of 60 per cent for everything invested in this way. The farmer with a taxable income below $17,000 will receive a tax equivalent subsidy of 32 per cent. Who advised the Government to adopt this measure? Was it the Treasury? That is not likely. Was it the Department of Primary Industry?

That is not likely. It certainly would not have been the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.

The argument will probably be used that this measure will boost the Australian economy because it will stimulate the purchase of plant and machinery made in Australia. I have two points to make about that. The first is that that argument can be used to justify providing free flagons of port wine for alcoholics, because it will increase the consumption of wine, generate more employment in wineries and among the glass makers, or whoever it is that makes the flagons. That argument can be used to justify any policy at all. If such policies are to be adopted, there ought to be a cost-benefit analysis done on them. Their costeffectiveness ought to be tested. There is no suggestion that this has been done, and I suspect that if the cost efficiency in terms of stimulating economic activity of such a measure were to be tested, it would be revealed to be very unfavourable. Tax related measures are most effective in stimulating purchases by the wealthiest section of farmers who are likely to purchase the most expensive machinery, the largest and the most elaborate machinery which has a very high propensity to be imported.

My final comment on this aspect is on the fishing industry. These provisions apply also to fishing. The problems facing Australian fishermen - I am dealing with partnerships and sole operators, not large corporate organisations, which are not dominant at this stage in the fishing industry but which might well become dominant as a result of measures like this - are in a different category. The problem confronting Australian fishermen, especially those who want to fish waters more distant from the coast following the proclamation of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone, is not one of the rate at which boats and other equipment may be depreciated for taxation purposes; the problem is in the first place mustering the capital to purchase the very much larger and therefore much more expensive boats that are required for fishing more distant waters. Predictably, this Government has made absolutely no provision for that real need of Australian fishermen. In its customary style, it has provided another tax lurk which will be attractive to outside capital and most beneficial to outside capital, while the real needs fo the fishing industry continue to be ignored.

The second set of proposals in this Bill are related to soil conservation, so called. That was lifted from the policy speech of the Prime Minister. A Liberal Party document which accompanied the Prime Minister’s policy speech states:

In the Policy Speech the Government has announced: - full tax deductibility of capital expenditure on soil conservation by a primary producer ($1 million).

The costing of the 20 per cent depreciation allowance was shonky; this costing was more shonky. A proposal which would have entailed a similar loss of government revenue had been put forward by the Labor Party prior to that. We costed it at $5m per annum. I mention that for that proposal we were belittled by faint praise in Ronald Anderson’s Primary Industry Newsletter, Ronald Anderson being one of Australia’s more conflict of interest ridden rural journalists. He pointed out that that was not such a bad proposal but that it was a puny commitment given that a joint Commonwealth-State study of soil conservation needs had shown the need for expenditure of $6 10m in 1975 values, or something over $1 billion today. I note that when the Government came out with a proposition which, although more regressive, entailed a similar loss to revenue, Mr Anderson made no comment. Five million dollars was grossly inadequate; apparently Sim was adequate. But that is not the real point. The real point is that the costing by the Prime Minister was grossly dishonest by a factor of five, even if the range of measures covered had not been expanded greatly from pure soil conservation.

When this Bill was debated in the House of Representatives John Kerin described the exemption for soil conservation as a little tax matter. He was castigated for this by Mr Viner, who said that it was ‘a very important incentive to rural producers of this country’. Mr Viner can take his choice, a choice between the trivial, as is inescapable if the Prime Minister’s estimate of $ 1 m as the total cost is to be accepted, and the deduction that the incentive was dishonestly costed. In other words, it is a very little tax matter if the Prime Minister’s costing is honest. But if it will be a very important incentive to rural producers of this country, the Prime Minister’s costing has to be dishonest and the proposal has to be very much more expensive than the Sim that he claimed. Mr Viner cannot have it both ways.

The magnitude of the dishonesty is much greater than the figures I have so far quoted suggest. These measures when they actually appear in the legislation apply not just to expenditure on soil conservation but to a wide range of farm expenditures, many of which bear little if any relationship whatsoever to soil conservation. The measures are also rather vaguely worded. For example, under proposed new sub-section 75D (1), expenditure incurred on the ‘eradication or extermination of animal or vegetable pests from the land’ will be immediately and fully deductible if the Senate is irresponsible enough to pass this legislation. Likewise, the legislation provides for the ‘destruction of weed or plant growth’ and the ‘draining of swamp’. What has that got to do with soil conservation? I will return to that matter later. These measures relate also to ‘the purpose of preventing or combating soil erosion otherwise than by the erection of fences on the land’. Paragraph (e) of the proposed new subsection seems to contradict that and refers to expenditure incurrred in: an operation consisting of the erection of fences (including any extension, alteration or addition to fences) on the land for the purpose of excluding live-stock or vermin from areas affected by soil erosion or excessive salinity . . .

There is scarcely any farm land in Australia which is not affected by soil erosion. If farmers are willing to twist the intention of the law a bit - there seems to be ample scope within the letter of that paragraph to do precisely that - that provides scope for them to claim virtually all expenditure on fencing as an immediate deduction from taxable income. Today I procured from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics - no year by year statistics on expenditure on fencing materials by farmers are kept - its current series of price indexes. The base period for the statistics is 1960-61 to 1962-63. In that period 2.4 per cent of total farm expenditure was expenditure on fencing and fencing materials.

Senator Young:

– Have repairs to fencing not always been a 100 per cent deduction?

Senator WALSH:

– Repairs always have been deductible, but this provision does not apply to repairs; it applies to ‘the erection of fences’. The honourable senator has a point, to some extent. Some of this expenditure would have been repairs, but the majority of it would not. That expenditure represented 2.4 per cent of the total farm expenditure that year. The estimated total farm costs for the present financial year are $7. 1 billion. The index for farm costs in general and the index for the fencing component of the farm cost regimen have moved at almost identical rates since the base period in the early 1960s. If actual expenditure is a similar proportion today to what it was then - there is no real reason to believe it will have greatly changed - total expenditure on fencing materials would be $160m to $170m. Senator Young pointed out - I acknowledge the point - that some of that would be spent on materials for the repair of fences, which expenditure under existing law is tax deductible. Let us be generous and allow half of that expenditure for that. That means that expenditure on fencing materials which would qualify under this proposed new section, particularly if farmers stretched the intention of the Bill a bit - the letter of the Bill provides plenty of scope for them to do that - would total about $80m, which would be deductible from taxable income. At the sort of marginal tax rates most farmers are paying, that would mean a loss to revenue of in the vicinity of $30m. So, to the $5m or so for actual expenditure on soil conservation, we can add whatever will be claimed for draining swamps, destroying weeds, eliminating vermin, plus about $30m for fencing. The total cost to revenue of these concessions could well amount to about $40m, as against the Sim estimated by the Prime Minister. I probably should say that he claimed that amount rather than estimated it.

Let us look at the extraordinary provision for the drainage of swamps. Firstly, it is directly contradictory to recent policy initiatives by a Liberal government in South Australia which is providing financial incentives for farmers to leave their wetlands untouched. We have a Federal government ostensibly of the same party bringing in incentives for farmers to drain their wetlands. But the economic point I want to make is that expenditure on the drainage of swamps is non-recurring capital expenditure. It is expenditure which increases for all time the market value of the land in question. If it was not believed to be so, nobody would undertake the expenditure in the first place. The amendments which were introduced in the House of Representatives and which are now incorporated in the Bill presented to the Senate also extend deductibility to expenditure undertaken on the draining of swamps. I quote from the Bill: an operation consisting of the construction on the land, for the purpose of controlling salinity or assisting in draining control, of surface drainage works or sub-surface drainage works,

That is an extension of the deductibility to expenditure undertaken on salinity control as well as on draining swamps. Since that provision has now been added to the legislation, I can say that expenditure on reclamation work, including fencing, on land which has become saline while being owned by the present owner, is already and has long been fully deductible from taxable income. That was based, I presume, on the seemingly sound logic that a capital asset purchased by someone has since deteriorated and, therefore, any expenditure aimed at restoring the original value of that’ capital asset ought to be deductible from current income. I have no quarrel with that logic. That applies under the existing tax law; there have been numerous rulings from the Commissioner of Taxation on that.

This ill-thought-out and regressive proposition will encourage the purchase by speculators or by people from outside farming with capital of wetlands or of saline affected lands on which reclamation is technically feasible so that they can claim the expenditure as a complete deduction on current income and then sell the asset, pocketing in the meantime a tax free capital gain. If the Government is to accept that proposition as something which is compatible with a rational or equitable taxation law, it might as well make expenditure on the purchase of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd shares on the Sydney Stock Exchange deductible from taxable income. The most damaging illustration of the hasty and illconsidered way in which this legislation has been drawn up is the simple fact that its effects and objectives are directly contradictory to legislation recently introduced by the Liberal Government of South Australia.

Again I ask the questions: Who advised the Government to enact this legislation? Was it the Treasury? That is not likely. Was it the Department of Primary Industry? That is not likely. Was it the Bureau of Agricultural Economics? I think I can show that is even less likely. I can quote something in that respect which will illustrate just how unlikely that is. Presumably it would not have been the Premier of South Australia. Indeed, given the extreme subjectivity of this Government’s approach to economic management and policy, one wonders which Minister has a swamp to drain.

I refer now to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. I think it is pertinent to quote a comment made in March 1979 by the Director of that Institution at the Agro 79 Conference in Perth on this very question of making available for investment in agriculture tax concessions which are not generally available to other sectors. Of course, it will be claimed by the Government, and especially by the backwoodsmen from the National Country Party and their Liberal Party converts or fellow travellers, that this is beneficial to the poor struggling cocky, et cetera. That will obviously not be the effect of it because by its very nature it is regressive, as are all deductions from taxable income. Let us take a broader picture than the individual and see what the likely effects will be on the farming sector as a whole and what the publicly stated views of the Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics are. In Perth 20 months ago Dr Miller said:

Tax concessions result in excessive entry into agriculture for the specific purpose of receiving the economic reward associated with the concessions.

I interpolate there to say that I was giving an example of that when I referred to saline land, expenditure on the reclamation of which is already deductible under existing tax law. This provision will encourage the purchase of saline land by speculators from outside agriculture for the ultimate purpose of picking up a tax free capital gain. Miller said: . . for the specific purpose of receiving the economic reward associated with the concessions. Rural land values and the cost of other limited resources such as livestock and credit are inflated by this process. Although individuals may benefit, the benefits of tax concessions to rural industry as a whole are likely to be negative.

If any honourable senators from the Government side claim that these measures will be beneficial to the struggling, battling cocky, they obviously do not understand the arithmetic of tax concessions in the form of deductions from taxable income. If they claim that they are beneficial to the farming sector as a whole, I invite them to table the advice from the bureaucracy which conflicts with the views publicly stated by Dr Miller 20 months ago. I do not believe they will. These measures are yet another manifestation of the slide into banana republicanism in the area of economic management.

One spectacularly expensive and ill-considered promise made by the Prime Minister in his election policy speech is not included in this legislation. I refer to the promise to make expenditure on tanks for the on-farm storage of fuel immediately deductible from taxable income. No comment has been made about that by any Government member who spoke on the Bill in the other place, by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) or by anyone else, as far as I know. I would like to think - experience leads me to be less than wholly optimistic about this - that on second thoughts the Government has decided not to proceed with that particularly ill-conceived and stupid rort.

In case it does, I want to make a few points. Let us assume that that concession induced farmers to store on farms an extra six months’ fuel supply over and above what they have already stored. That would be about 1,200 million litres of fuel which would require 545,000 standard 2,200-litre tanks which sell for $320 each. The total cost of the tanks would be $174m. If that were the effect of the measure, that $ 1 74m would be fully and immediately deductible from taxable incomes. If the average marginal tax rate is 45c, which is about what it is likely to be for the sorts of farmers who would take advantage of this measure, the cost to revenue would be about $78m. I trust that even this Government will have enough nous not to proceed with that particularly stupid proposition.

The powerful additional reasons, apart from cost, why it should not be contemplated are simple facts about the economics of fuel storage. The per unit cost of storage is lower in large storages than it is in small storages. Any given quantity of fuel would be more effective as an emergency reserve, and stored at much lower cost, in large regional storages than scattered around tens of thousands of farms. If it were not wanted on the farms on which it was stored it would be physically difficult to retrieve it. There would also be some legal complications, of course, since it would be the property of the farmer and not of an agent, oil company or any authority.

Finally, just in case the Government intends to proceed with this provision, 1 raise another matter. lt would be highly profitable, even without a tax rort, for people with very high incomes to buy fuel in this way. Given the present Government’s import parity oil pricing policy, the price of fuel has been increasing at a much faster rate than the rate of interest. It is a good investment to buy fuel although there are technical objections to storing it for long periods. With a taxation rort to encourage them to do it it will be an even better investment. But who will provide the strategic reserves for the farmers who cannot afford to buy fuel at Fraser prices six or twelve months before they need to use it and who cannot afford either to buy the tanks to store it in?

Other provisions are contained in this legislation. One of them was added in the House of Representatives. It makes donations to the Italian earthquake appeal tax deductible. The Opposition is, of course, not opposed to it although it objects to its being tacked on to a Bill with which it has no common ground. Other provisions make capital expenditure on amusements subject to the investment allowance. Another provision repairs the unintended effects of drafting errors in earlier legislation pertaining to the investment allowance. For all the reasons 1 have given for opposing the major provisions of this Bill, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, 1 move the following amendment:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert ‘the Bill be withdrawn until the Treasurer provides the Senate with:

the (i) reasons for and (ii) cost of the amendments proposed;

We are supposed to have a fiscally responsible Government so why can it not provide us with an estimate of what these things are likely to cost as distinct from the shonky estimates we got for some of them in the policy speech a couple of months ago? The amendment continues:

  1. evidence that such a measure (i) will result in greater efficiency in the industries concerned and a better allocation of our national resources and (ii) will not have an adverse effect on the environment: and
  2. an explanation as to why the proposed benefits to primary producers (i) are provided on an inequitable basis and (ii) should be provided by way of income tax concession rather than by direct grant’.

I will explain the meaning of the last part. If there is a demonstrable economic justification for providing indirect subsidies by way of taxation concessions - there demonstrably is not in these cases - the proper way to approach that provision in terms of its optimum effect on resource allocation and, as I and most other people believe, on equity grounds, is to make a concession in the form of a rebate on taxable income at any level. Let us say that the level is 40 per cent. For every dollar spent on expenditure which qualified under such a provision a person would receive a 40c tax subsidy regardless of his level of income, provided he had an income. The tax subsidy equivalent would be 40c for every dollar spent whether the income was $10,000 or $100,000. This Bill- it contains the type of provision which has always appealed to so-called conservative governments - will provide a tax subsidy of 60 per cent for the cocky with a $100,000 income and 32 per cent for the cocky with a $10,000 income. I would be interested to hear what is the economic or social rationale for that sort of regressive discrimination.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Gietzelt:

– I second the amendment.

Senator WATSON:
Tasmania

– We are discussing today the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1980. Listening to our dear friend on the Opposition benches we found that since he left the land he has obviously become very embittered towards his former associates. This is rather regrettable and therefore it is not surprising that he has been removed from the position of shadow Minister for Primary Industry. After his recent attacks on our esteemed and beloved Minister for Finance (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) I wonder how much longer he will hold the position of shadow Minister for Finance.

The Bill contains a number of features. In fact, it covers five main areas. Some disquiet was indicated by Senator Walsh. He was concerned that a number of unrelated matters were included in this Bill. We in this place have a very good memory. I refer Senator Walsh to all the provisions included in Act No. 165 of 1973. The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 6), as I mentioned, covers a range of measures.

Firstly, it authorises a deduction in the year of expenditure for the capital cost of a range of soil conservation measures, including drainage work to control soil salinity and also to assist in drainage control. The second feature is the deductions which are allowable from assessable income in respect of donations of $2 or more to the public appeal set up to assist the victims of the Italian earthquake disaster. Thirdly, there is the special depreciation allowance in relation to new plant which enables primary producers to write off the cost of equipment, including fishing boats and certain on-shore facilities, in five equal yearly instalments. Fourthly, there is the inclusion of plant for amusement and recreation to qualify for the 20 per cent investment allowance. Fifthly, there are amendments to correct certain drafting deficiencies in legislation that was enacted earlier this year which introduced allowances on conversions from oil-fired equipment.

Three of these five amendments were essentially election promises. It is commendable that the Government has acted with such speed in implementing these provisions. I contrast this action with what happened in 1973. It took from Budget night until 1 1 December for a majority of the wide ranging measures which were included in the Budget to receive royal assent. Some of the features denied by the Labor Government in 1973, this Government has now seen fit to partially restore. One of those restorations, of course, concerns the eligibility of plant to attract depreciation allowance in equal instalments over five years.

Another amendment, of course, made in 1973 was an amendment to section 75, for the introduction of a new section 75a. That limited the deduction of a range of items not to the year of expenditure but over 10 equal instalments. To some extent, we are resurrecting part of one of those concerning drainage to assist with the problem of salinity and to assist with certain salinity controls. But when one hears Senator Walsh say that there should not be deductions for pest extermination and for weed growth, one considers that his farm must have been in a semi-paradise because, quite obviously, it did not have the problems that some of our farmers in Tasmania experience where ragwort is a serious weed infestation which is taking over hundreds and hundreds - and it will soon be thousands - of acres in our State, lt is a problem because it is–

Senator Walsh:

– What does it have to do with soil conservation? That was my criticism.

Senator WATSON:

– It is included in this section. As well as ragwort from time to time we have such problems as exterminating rabbits. The Government, in the second measure relating to the Italian earthquake victims, has decided to allow, in the current year ending 30 June 1981, donations of $2 or more as allowable deductions for income tax purposes. This is just one of a package of measures whereby the Government will assist these victims. Let me go through some of those measures. For example, it has decided to relax the migrant entry requirement so that the relatives of victims of the Italian earthquake can sponsor them, and the claims will be processed as quickly as possible. The Government has also decided to allocate immediately $500,000 to the Australian appeal which has been established by leaders of the Italian community in Australia. The Government has also agreed, as I mentioned earlier, that any donation of $2 or more in the current year shall be an allowable deduction for income tax purposes. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is flying an experienced immigration officer, fluent in the local dialects, to the Italian earthquake disaster zone, and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee) is to be commended for his prompt and wide-ranging responses to this matter.

The Government also will not allow a lack of funds on the part of an applicant or a sponsor to prevent anyone coming to Australia. I think this is certainly a compassionate view that our Government has taken. At the time of such a tragedy we have stated that everything will be done to help those people who have lost literally everything. In a more recent announcement the Government has decided to provide up to 800 tents to help in the relief arrangements for victims of the Italian earthquake. The Commonwealth has agreed to share with the Tasmanian Government the $120,000 cost of purchasing tents, in line with other relief measures that were announced on 25 November. It is important that these tents be sent to Italy as soon as possible, so arrangements have been made to air freight them to Rome. Our Government is indeed a compassionate Government and one which is concerned about small people as well as all sections of the community.

I now come back to the soil conservation measures. This Bill will allow a full reduction in the year of expenditure of capital costs of a wide range of soil conservation measures on land which is used for primary production. The operative date is 1 October 1980. Certainly the drainage control feature is a recognition that Australia does not necessarily consist solely of flat, open country. There are many parts of Australia where farmers have to farm in some low-lying areas that essentially are subject to fairly regular drainage problems. 1 know that in Tasmania legitimate farmers have run into this sort of problem. It might be all very well for people who live out on the broad acre plains, but I think this is a necessary inclusion for those farmers who are attempting to struggle along on the small areas of high rainfall in essentially low-lying areas.

I mentioned earlier that previously these deductions were allowed only in equal instalments over each of 10 years. By virtue of this legislation, the deduction will be allowed in the year in which the expenditure is incurred. Capital expenditures to qualify for the new deductions include, as I mentioned earlier, eradication, extermination of animal and vegetable pests, destruction of detrimental weed or plant growth, and the draining of swamp or low-lying land. 1 shall quote from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation environmental research journal, Ecos, in its most recent edition it has an article headed ‘Time is Running Out for Our Soil’. I shall quote just a couple of features from that article, which states:

Unfortunately, most Australian surface soil layers are too shallow to offer a real reserve, and if the land is to remain productive we must cut its erosion rate down to the rate of formation.

I believe this is a measure that will assist in that direction. The article further states:

Australia’s soils, unlike those of Europe and North America, ure ancient and have shallow surface layers. In much of the United States the fertile earth is several metres deep, but if you push a spade 15 cm into an Australian paddock the chances are that you will strike subsoil. And eroded soil takes a long time to be replaced. Soil forms so slowly . . .

The article continues:

The supervising soil conservationist with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Mr Ross Berndt, warns that in wheatlands soil is often being lost at the annual rate of 50 tonnes u hectare, or more than 44mm a year. If these losses continue, he believes they will seriously reduce the productivity of many of his State’s agricultural soils before the end of this century.

I believe that, with those sorts of learned comments, the deductions that we have allowed under this Bill will well be received by the agricultural community and will be beneficial to primary producers throughout Australia. I commend the Bill, without the amendments, to the Senate.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

-I wish I could agree with Senator Watson’s final statements, but 1 fear that there are a number of reasons, some of which Senator Walsh has already touched on, which would induce the Australian Democrats to feel that maybe somebody has not done his homework quite well enough on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 6). Perhaps it would be a good idea if it was taken back to the drawing board and somebody had a closer look at some of the implications of what is there.

Senator Gietzelt:

– That is what our amendment seeks to do.

Senator MASON:

– Indeed it does, and we support it for that reason. I want to speak in particular to those areas of the proposed Bill described as deduction of expenditure on soil conservation. The first point I wish to make is that the Australian Democrats hope that this is not intended to be the Government’s only fiscal response to the national problem of soil erosion which, I suggest, is now a much bigger issue than most people believe and know it to be. It is a problem which this country has to consider in the largest possible way in order to prevent the loss of topsoil which is continuous, I gather, in some parts of our major cropping areas. We have to derive methods and look at environmental considerations which might genuinely prevent further soil erosion in this country. The Australian Democrats’ chief argument with the proposed Bill as it stands is that some of the provisions in it appear, not only in our own view but also in the view of some of the conservation organisations and of other people, to be contributing to a greater process of soil erosion in Australia.

Senator Puplick:

– Senator, have you seen the amendment that removes that clause from the Bill?

Senator MASON:

– I have one amendment before me at the moment. I will continue my remarks. I will discuss that matter with Senator Puplick subsequently, if I may. In relation to the proposed new section 75D which is labelled ‘Deduction of expenditure on soil conservation’ we are interested particularly in proposed new subsection 1 (a) which states that this tax deductible operation is: an operation for the purpose of the eradication or extermination of animal or vegetable pests from the land.

Another operation for which there is complete tax deductibility is: an operation consisting of the draining of swamp or low-lying land where that operation improves the agricultural or grazing value of the land.

Senator Hamer:

– Madam Acting Deputy President, I point out that that proposed new subsection has been taken out of the Bill. It cannot be discussed as part of the Bill because it is not in the Bill.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Melzer) - I call Senator Mason.

Senator MASON:

– 1 would have thought that those two proposed new sub-sections were part of the Bill, since I was reading from it. I can see in this, and the Democrats and conservationists feel–

Senator Messner:

– I raise a point of order. It might help Senator Mason if he were able to get a copy of the amendments, which I believe have been circulated.

Senator MASON:

– Indeed it would. Thank you. I do not seem to have a copy of them, I am afraid. I have only Senator Walsh’s amendment. I am not aware of these amendments. I do not have them before me, Madam Acting Deputy President.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Do you wish to continue, Senator Mason?

Senator MASON:

– I will continue, yes. I feel that people would be looking at this legislation in pleasurable anticipation, thinking that if they purchase a property which is a farm or which can qualify as a farm for the time being it can be exploited in a variety of ways at the expense of other taxpayers through operations such as the felling of forests or scrub. In fact, it would not be going too far to say that this would permit the virtual destruction of native flora and fauna on that land. Some money-hungry people would be looking at the sub-section, which would permit the filling in of areas of wetland, again at the expense of the taxpayer. If the Government is prepared to take that point and to alter the proposed new subsection, nothing would please me more. That is a situation which we want to avoid. A number of people in the community share that view with me. These kinds of activities are to be justified in this Bill on the basis that they would improve the agricultural or grazing value of land, but that, of course, is a purely temporary situation. Most land in the world has at some stage been agricultural grazing land. Later on, of course, it can be subdivided. This is particularly important in coastal areas where one considers possible subdivision into holiday or urban areas. A great deal of this has already been carried out in Australia. If these measures continue they will give an incentive for such activities and will not contribute to soil conservation.

What will be the effect of removing the words animal or vegetable pests’ from the Bill? How is a vegetable pest to be defined? A pest, I think, is usually denned as something which is not desired by a person at a time in the situation in which he or she is operating. In other words, if one is going to undertake an agricultural or grazing operation, whole areas of forest are a pest and it is in one’s interest to remove that vegetable pest. Large areas of this country have suffered in the past because of the incentives which have been given for the removal of forests and other vegetable growth. This has an inevitable effect also on the fauna of an area.

I can see that the Government has intended this provision to be constructive. The other subsections dealing with the combating of erosion and soil salinity as such demonstrate this. We feel that the matter needs to be looked at more carefully. Although 1 have looked at these amendments just briefly, they do not seem to me to be very much more than a very tiny attempt to bandaid the Bill at this stage. I do not think that is quite good enough. It is a habit of the Government to bring forward a Bill of this kind, to note the sort of opposition to it and the points that are raised, which indeed it and its draftsmen should have noted earlier, and then to put forward a few hastily considered band-aid measures of this kind and expect the Senate to be satisfied with them. There is no way in which we would be satisfied with them, nor do I believe that those interested in conservation in this country would be satisfied with them.

It is not just an Australian Democrats view nor just Labor Party view that there is something wrong with this legislation. A submission which I think a number of honourable senators would have received - certainly it was circulated to all of them - from the South Australian Field and Game Association pointed out something that Senator Walsh mentioned, that is, resolutions were passed in the South Australian House of Assembly on this matter. The following was passed in October 1973:

  1. . that in the opinion of the House, substantial areas of available wetlands in South Australia should be preserved for the conservation of wildlife and, where possible, former wetlands should be rehabilitated.

We cannot rehabilitate things and destroy them at the same time. The Australian Conservation Foundation has said to me that the provision appears to allow farmers to make, without review, decisions which would have adverse effects on wetlands which may have in time a significant environmental value, lt states:

We accept that there may be some circumstances where drainage works are appropriate. In this context, however, we would draw to your attention the advantages of using trees to lower water tables.

Here we have a completely different situation. We encourage farmers and others, by giving them tax concessions, to destroy trees; yet other schools of thought say that in many parts of Australia it is necessary to plant trees in order to improve the natural situation. The Australian Conservation Foundation adds:

If legislation is introduced, we hope it will concentrate on natural controls rather than ‘works’ which often serve merely to transfer a problem downstream.

If there is anything that categorises the proposed new section entitled ‘Deduction of expenditure on soil conservation’ it is works, presumably works that can be carried out for some kind of profit. The Conservation Foundation comments:

In our view, proposals to drain swamps should be reviewed to assess the impact of the proposal on overall wetland values. As a preliminary step, it may be appropriate to conduct an inquiry into Australia’s wetlands and their management.

I commend that suggestion to the Senate. 1 think it is an excellent idea. Submissions have also been made to me on similar matters by the Friends of The Earth organisation. Some general criticisms include the following: There is no tax assistance here for farmers to plant trees, which will lower water tables through transpiration. In other words, the Government should promote soft technology, not drainage works exclusively. Drainage may improve a swamp for agricultural purposes, but the water has to go somewhere. It may be washing away the banks of a creek on a neighbour’s property. Drainage works tend to speed up water flow, thereby causing soil erosion. That problem can be simply sent downstream, as, indeed, is happening with most of our agricultural problems - for example, our problem with the Murray River. The clearing of trees and other native vegetation - this point is made again - often causes erosion, especially if they are in catchment areas. This legislation is designed to encourage that process and to give people a tax deduction for doing so. I certainly cannot see how this can be a soil conservation measure. By using the same tax concession now farmers can raise the water table by clearing and can lower it again by drainage. It is a very minor point - I think an obvious point, an axiom - to say that the aims of this legislation are confused, at the very least.

Australia has international obligations for conserving wetlands. As far as we know, the nation has not yet even mapped its wetlands. This, of course, goes back to the ACF suggestion that we should have an inquiry into this whole area. The mapping could be done quite easily, I would think, by Landsat through its imagery, as it has all the necessary technology and facilities. I suggest it would be a good idea if we did that.

In general, the Bill needs more attention. It would seem to me that regardless of the Government’s amendments the Australian Labor Party’s amendment is the more reasonable one. It allows the Bill to be considered with more maturity. It would allow a process of consultation to take place with the Australian Conservation Foundation and other organisations in Australia which have a perfect right to be consulted over this sort of matter and which have an expertise which would be of value. I would like the Minister at some stage to tell us whether the Department of Home Affairs and Environment was consulted at all before these provisions were brought forward. Because the Bill needs more attention and because the proposed Labor Party amendment would permit this, we accordingly support the amendment.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I rise to speak in this debate in order to express concern at the breakdown in communications which has occurred for those who are listening to this debate. I gained the impression that the matter about which Senator Mason is concerned was to have been deleted by a Government amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 6). Unfortunately the internal broadcasting system in Parliament House was cut off and I did not hear the outcome of it. I would like the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Messner) to give us the truth and nothing but the truth as to whether the Government’s amendment does remove the fears that I share with Senator Mason. Those fears relate to the preservation of wetlands.

Senator MESSNER:
South AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– First, I turn to one or two points which Senator Mason made during his speech. I believe it was a shame that he had not had the opportunity of seeing the Government’s amendments because to a large extent he would have–

Senator Walsh:

– lt is not a shame; it is a scandal and you are responsible.

Senator MESSNER:

– The amendments were circulated.

Senator Walsh:

– Nobody on this side has a copy.

Senator MESSNER:

– I was advised that they had been circulated to allow plenty of time for consideration. With regard to Senator Mason’s remarks, it may have helped had he had the opportunity to see those amendments beforehand because quite rightly he did address a lot of his remarks towards the wetlands questions. I believe that had he seen the Government’s amendments he would have realised that the Government has gone a long way towards meeting the points he raised. In fact, I will reiterate for the benefit of

Senator Mason and others. The point of the exercise is to ensure that a full tax deduction in respect of the draining of swamps and so on is not to be made available, but rather that a deduction based on a 10 per cent amortisation of the cost is to be allowed. I believe that that is a nice balance so as to ensure that no undue incentive is given for people to undertake the drainage of swamps. I believe Senator Mulvihill acknowledged the point. I hope that Senator Mason would agree that that is a satisfactory outcome to the problem. I have been in contact with the State Minister responsible for conservation and environment in South Australia, to whom I think Senator Mason referred in relation to certain wetlands in that State. The Minister’s advice to me was that those measures certainly met his conditions and requirements.

With regard to the general points which Senator Mason made about soil conservation generally and the question of timber cutting, I point out to him that in no way would the cost of timber-cutting, as I understand it, be deductible under the legislation. In fact, the only amounts which would be deductible are those for the eradication of vegetable pests from the land or alternatively weed or plant growth that was detrimental to the land. I believe those matters are definable. Certainly one would not expect timber stands to be included in that category.

Senator Walsh referred to the costing of this proposal and to certain other matters. He said that he could not accept the Government’s amendments. I ask Senator Walsh whether that is correct. I refer to the amendments in connection with the wetlands proposal.

Senator Walsh:

– I did not know about that. 1 meant the amendments to the original Act.

Senator MESSNER:

- Senator Walsh in supporting the Opposition amendments questioned whether the reasons for the Government’s amendments were reasonable and said that the cost of the amendments should be made available. This was a matter on which the Government went to the people on 18 October. It was an election policy. Consequently the Government, as we know, was returned to office on that basis.

Senator Walsh:

– It went on soil conservation, not all these works.

Senator MESSNER:

– This is a very important matter in relation to soil conservation, as the honourable senator would know. Consequently this Bill was introduced as a follow-through from that mandate given by the people on 1 8 October and is an honouring, as immediately as is possible, of that promise. My colleague Senator Watson very clearly stated the points in relation to this matter, that is, the importance in rural areas to develop conservation of the soil and to build up the soil quality for the future development of Australian primary industries. That is something which I believe is clearly in the mind of the nation as we enter the next 20 or 30 years. It is of vital importance in terms of supplying food to the world. We know that unless there is a green revolution in this world in the next generation the growing population of the world will not be able to feed itself. Australia has a great deal to contribute in that area. Consequently, this is a vital incentive for Australians to assist in the development of more and more food resources for the people of this world.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– Referring to the remarks made by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Messner) on this debate–

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Maunsell) - Order! The Minister has closed the debate. The question is:

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

Question put.

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 31

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Amendment (by Senator Messner) - by leave - proposed:

1 ) Page 6, clause 8, lines 1 1 to 1 5, leave out paragraph (c), substitute the following paragraph:

by omitting paragraph (g) of sub-section (1) and substituting the following paragraph: “(g) preventing or combating flooding on the land otherwise than by way of an operation of the kind referred to in paragraph (e) or (f) of subsection (1) of section 75d.”.

(2) Page 6, clause 9, lines 33 to 35, leave out paragraph (c) of sub-section (1 ) of proposed section 75d. (3) Page 7, clause 9, line 3, after 'operation' insert(not being an operation consisting of the draining of swamp or lowlying land)'.
Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– Insofar as the amendments remove some of the ill-considered, obnoxious provisions of the Bill, we of the Opposition will not be opposing them. But if any further proof were needed as to why the Opposition’s amendment which sought to withdraw the whole of the Bill, redraft it and reconsider it should have been agreed to I think the Government has just supplied it. This legislation, which was introduced only last week, is to be amended on the death knell of the sittings of this chamber because some of the greenies got on to it and convinced the Government that it was a pretty silly proposition. I suppose the Liberal Government in South Australia in particular got on to the Government and said:What you propose to do is totally opposed to what we have just done so you had better have another think about it. The Government has succumbed to that pressure. It is a pity that the multiplicity of economic irrationalities included in the Bill had not attracted the attention of a group as vigilant as the greenies and brought equal pressure to bear on the Government.

I have a couple of specific questions to ask, apart from indicating our opposition to the amendments which, as. 1 said, remove only some of the obnoxious provisions in the Bill. The questions are: Does the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Messner) believe that these provisions, even as amended by the Government’s amendments will mean a cost to revenue of only$1m? Is the Government willing to table an opinion from anyone in the Public Service that these provisions will cost only $lm. I raise that question especially since Senator Messner has claimed that the Government has a mandate to do all the things it proposes to do in this Bill and presumably all the things it proposes to do in the Bill as amended. Does the Minister believe the assertion of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that the cost to revenue will be $lm. If he does believe that, the effect of these provisions on soil conservation will obviously be negligible. If he does not believe it, he will be implicitly confirming what Opposition members have already said, that is, that the Prime Minister was pulling figures out of the air and that his estimates of costs should be taken no more seriously than his election promises.

The second question refers to clause 9(1) (e) of the amending Bill which refers to expenses being fully deductible from taxable income for the erection of fences for the purpose of excluding livestock or vermin from areas affected by soil erosion. I seek a definition of an area affected by soil erosion. I suggest that virtually no agricultural land in Australia is not affected by soil erosion to some degree. I seek an explanation from the Minister, given the very loose wording of that clause or the wide definition that such wording allows, of how virtually all expenditure on fencing is deductible under that clause. There are two questions: Firstly, can the Minister give a definition of an area affected by soil conservation for the purpose of this Bill; secondly, does he believe the Prime Minister’s estimate that the measures will cost only$1m?

Senator TEAGUE:
South Australia

– I am amazed and shocked that the spokesman for the Opposition on this matter, Senator Walsh, should be so ranting in his critical stance in this place that when a series of good amendments is introduced by the Government he has not the grace to accept them as being good. Even though he supports the amendments he finds it necessary to turn them back on the Government in whatever form of twisted logic he can find. I, as a back bench member of the Government, emphasise that these amendments proposed by the Government seek to ensure that land is not drained in order that some individuals in the community can make a quick capital gain and to ensure that overdraining is not undertaken in pastoral areas, so that the birdlife can be preserved and the full use can be made of the land by the conservation of the soil. It needs to be recognised that this Senate is a House of review. When senators notice some clauses in a Bill that are misplaced and do not reflect Government policy it is appropriate that the clauses are reviewed in this chamber and that we bring to bear evidence and arguments that we have. This is not in any sense double speaking, rather it highlights that these are Government amendments in response to Government policy. I very much support the amendments which will have a good conservation consequence, not least for my State of South Australia. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I must respond to what Senator Teague had to say. The Opposition is supporting the amendments moved by the Government because they invalidate a significant part of the Bill. We would like to invalidate virtually all the Bill and that is the reason we moved our amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. That is the amendment that should have been carried. If any further evidence were needed of just how illconsidered, hasty and irrational this whole proposition is, the Government has just provided it in bringing in amendments which invalidate a large part of the original Bill. The amendments do not go far enough. What was really needed was the amendment which we proposed so that we could get on the job some people with a bit more sense than those who were responsible for having this legislation thrust upon us in the first place. In that way we could emasculate not 20 per cent of the Bill, as this amendment has done, but about 90 per cent.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I would like clarification on a point which I think needs clarifying. I would have thought that a Government amendment has no real status until it is moved. We cannot take notice of a piece of paper until it is actually seriously moved in this chamber. The amendment has now been moved but it had not been moved when I was speaking during the second reading debate. I am still not happy with proposed new section 75d (1). I cannot accept the Minister’s view that, in terms of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 6), a vegetable pest could not be construed as just trees. If a person says to the Government or to somebody else: ‘Here is a forest which 1 want to convert into a farm’, under proposed new section 75d ( 1 ) of this Bill he has a perfect right to clear that land completely of trees if necessary and to claim a complete deduction by so doing. I would like the Minister to cover that point again when he replies in this debate. I would like him to let me know how that would not happen. If indeed that is not the case then he will place a prohibition on farmers clearing trees and benefiting from it. If that is the case it should be so stated in the Bill; then the farmers and everybody else would know what has been included. That is one of the reasons we think the Bill should be redrafted. Of course in those circumstances a vegetable pest could be a tree. I am not persuaded by that argument.

I would like the Minister to comment on whether this provision could be used to cover a situation in which a person could clear land that apparently was going to be farm land, and sell it as a residential subdivision at a later stage. There is nothing whatsoever in this legislation to prevent a farmer doing that. I suggest that Government senators know as well as I that that will start happening quite soon in terms of what is contained in this Bill. I ask the Minister a question with regard to paragraph (e) of proposed new section 75d (1). I assume - though I may be incorrect - that the idea of providing for the erection of fences is to offer protection for the planting of trees within a saline or eroded area to prevent continued soil erosion or salinity in such an area. Either that is the case or it is not the case. I would like to know what is. I am sure that everybody else who reads the Bill would like to know. That is another reason this Bill should be looked at again. It is not clear in that area as well as in other areas. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on those points.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– The points made by Senator Mason are starting to get fairly wide of the mark in an attempt to cover his tracks now that his primary objection to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 6) has been accommodated - it is some sort of fall-back position on why the Australian Labor Party’s amendment to the second reading motion on the Bill should have been supported. He brought forward two additional criticisms which do not stand when one looks at both the intent and operation of the legislation. For instance, on the point he made about the emergence of some sort of shady operator who wants to buy swamp land, clear it with a tax concession and then sell it profitably for residential purposes, he drew a conclusion which is very difficult to sustain on the basis of the introductory words of proposed new section 75D ( 1 ) , which reads:

  1. . this section applies to expenditure of a capital nature incurred by a taxpayer who carries on a business of primary production on any land in Australia . . . lt then goes on to list a number of the proposals that are to be subject to deduction of expenditure for soil conservation purposes.
Senator Teague:

– It also talks about agricultural and grazing values.

Senator PUPLICK:

– Senator Teague is correct in point out that that is also part of the effect of this proposed new section 75D (1). The point Senator Mason then went on to make concerning whether a definition of ‘vegetable pests’ would include trees really is stretching pretty far the use and meaning of words. I do not know of any way in which it could be concluded that a tree is a vegetable pest for the purposes denned in this piece of legislation. I turn to the criticisms that have been made implicitly by Senator Mason about the clause which the Government now proposes to withdraw and, to a certain extent, the comments that Senator Walsh made about this being evidence in some way of why the whole of the legislation ought to be deferred or defeated. Quite clearly, a number of honourable senators received a great deal of correspondence on this matter. This correspondence arose fairly quickly. I, and other honourable senators, received messages from people such as representatives of the Friends of the Earth, from Michael Kennedy, from Dr Mosley of the Australian Conservation Foundation, and the Field and Game Association of South Australia. 1 suppose other honourable senators received those messages too or it may well have been that a deliberate target was made of those persons regarded - if I can proudly use Senator Walsh’s term - as greenies on this side of the Parliament.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Do you mean Government rebels?

Senator PUPLICK:

– I do not, no. One would think in a debate of this sort, if one believed Senator Walsh, that there was a contest between in his words rednecks and greenies I am sure that such an approach will not get us anywhere in the analysis of this piece of legislation. Quite clearly, a strong case was made on environmental grounds by people concerned about the particular operation of proposed new section 75D (1) (c). When the matter was looked at again and other factors were brought to bear Government members and senators were involved in discussion of this legislation and having had these points drawn to their attention they made representations to the Government. The Government’s response to those representations was to propose the amendment deleting the clause which was the cause of concern.

It would be absolutely pathetic for anybody to come forward to say that unless a Bill is introduced into parliament in a pristine form that should never be subject to amendment the Bill should not be introduced into Parliament. The supposed function of both chambers of parliament is to take a Bill introduced essentially by the Executive and subject it to the sort of scrutiny and analysis which may, in fact, and often should, lead to the Bill being amended. For members of parliament such as Senators Walsh and Mason to come forward to say that because a Bill is amended by the Parliament it is somehow evidence that the whole Bill ought to be taken out and redrafted is an abdication of the role that the majority of members - certainly of Government members - would want a parliament to play. It is true that the legislation may well have not been looked at by a number of Government members and senators who might find that their own interests do not lie primarily in the field of income tax legislation. But having had the consequences of some piece of income tax legislation drawn to their attention in relation to particular environmental issues, they then go ahead and take the steps that are available to them to bring about some change in the legislation and, it is to be hoped, some beneficial change.

The only other point that I want to make is to reply to the comment made earlier by Senator Mason. He wondered whether the Department of Home Affairs and Environment had had any input or comment to make on this matter. As 1 understand it, when the question of soil conservation was debated, certainly at Cabinet level, there was an opportunity for input on the part of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Ellicott), so that I do not think it would be right to try to portray this as simply a piece of legislation written by people in the Treasury or in the finance or economic departments of the Government which failed to seek any input from those who have some degree of responsibility for environmental matters.

The quite clear representations which were made to honourable senators by conservation groups, in particular, by people in South Australia have led to a situation in which the Government has had second thoughts about a piece of legislation, has been persuaded to amend that legislation and has moved to amend it. I think that that is the central role that those of us who are nonexecutive members of the Parliament have to play. I think we have this particular role to play, and that we ought to be playing it a little more actively. We should not be made the butt of Labor or Democrat criticism when an amendment of a

Bill takes place, when so many honourable senators spend their time complaining that they do not get that opportunity or that the Government does not respond often enough.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– Criticism has been levelled by Senator Walsh in respect of two aspects of the original amendment that was before the Senate, which dealt with matters related to the environment. These matters have now been taken on board, it is true, because of some change of attitude by Government members. But we also, of course, had regard for the economic factors which were not taken on board to the satisfaction of the Opposition. If in fact this piece of legislation was the last piece of legislation being dealt with on this day, it would not be able to go back in an amended form to the House of Representatives for its final consideration. The Opposition is quite justified in suggesting to the Senate that there were grave weaknesses and deficiencies in the legislation which germinated originally in the Treasury and the Department of Finance. They were dealt with at executive level and the Bill passed through the House of Representatives without any of the matters being given the sort of consideration that Government members now suggest have been taken on board by them in their reconsideration of the representations that have been made to them by the extra-parliamentary groups outside of the Parliament.

Criticism has been levelled at both Senator Walsh and Senator Mason. It must be borne in mind that Senator Mason was at the conclusion of his contribution when the Government circulated the proposed amendments, and the very criticisms which were being raised were, of course, being defended by Senator Watson in his contribution. This certainly gives the impression that if there were a change of heart in the Government it was from a very small group of people who suddenly saw what was happening. That of course proves the very point that the Opposition has been making for a considerable period, that there need to be environmental impact statements on all legislation, which should be receiving the consideration of the Parliament.

The Government has taken the view that that is not necessary. That shows that when we are dealing with this question of income tax, the economic consequences of which were very strongly highlighted by Senator Walsh, in some ways his remarks about the wetlands, as I interpret them, were somewhat incidental to the Opposition’s main criticism of the Bill, and the only device that was available to the Opposition was to have the Bill withdrawn. No other method was available to us at all, except to suggest that the Bill had not been properly considered. But the Government speakers have turned a somersault. They have turned about, and they have to admit that with respect to the environment aspects of this piece of legislation they were wrong.

As I said, if this piece of legislation was not on the Business Paper at this particular time, it would not be able to be reconsidered by the House of Representatives. Consequently the Opposition’s amendment for the Bill to be withdrawn and redrafted would have been quite in order, because it would not be brought into effect until such time as the House of Representatives was either called back for a special session or it resumed in February.

Let us be clear that whilst the Opposition applauds the fact that the back bench of the Government parties has responded to the extraparliamentary activity and has reconsidered its attitude in respect of part of the legislation–

Senator Walsh:

– Except for Watson.

Senator GIETZELT:

– With the exception of Senator Watson. But he was on his feet. The forms of democracy in a government party are obviously very strange indeed. There must have been a little group meeting somewhere, and certainly the way in which the democratic process operates in the Government parties is completely different. In our party, as you well know, Madam Chair, we would have had a meeting of our full parliamentary party in order to reverse a decision of the nature that comes before us now. At the dying stages of the debate, as I sought to speak, it was the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Senator Messner, who is in charge of this Bill who was on his feet talking about the amendment which prohibited us on this side of the House from making any comment about the amendment. When I sought to speak, I was ruled out of order because the Minister had moved that the Senate proceed with the third reading. So much for the democratic processes in this place.

The only opportunity afforded to us to comment upon the particular amendment is at the Committee stage. Let us have no illusions about the processes of the Government parties or the role of the Opposition. If the role of the Opposition on this side of the Chamber had not been exercised by Senator Walsh and Senator Mason, we probably would not have had the time to consider the amendments which have now been brought forward. Let us have no illusions. It is the effective role of the Opposition, both in this House and outside, which has accorded the

Government an opportunity to reconsider its illconsidered piece of legislation.

Senator MESSNER:
South AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I turn first to some of the remarks made by Senator Walsh. In particular, he asked about the economic consequences of the Bill. I think he challenged the Government to state that the cost of the legislation would not be any morethan Sim, as stated by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his policy speech. The truth of the matter is that there have been substantial additions to that original promise in favour of the–

Senator Walsh:

– So you haven’t got a mandate for it as you claimed 20 minutes ago.

Senator MESSNER:

– The point about that is that there are significant benefits which can be achieved in conjunction with this amendment which were not contemplated at the time of the election promise. Consequently, we are fulfilling on the one hand the election promise, and on the other hand, introducing further amendments which in fact extend to the primary producer more availability for further work, especially in the area of salinity control. I do not think that Senator Walsh, in his wildest dreams, would challenge that that was a worthwhile process for Australia to be contemplating in these important days.

The second matter to which he referred concerned fencing. He said that all fencing could be made to qualify by saying that it was fencing of a soil eroded area. Of course that is not so. The fencing has to be there for the purpose of keeping stock or vermin off the land affected by erosion.

Senator Walsh:

– For what other reasons do you put up fencing?

Senator MESSNER:

– If a primary producer were to keep stock in in that situation, he would be breaking the law by claiming the deduction. That is the situation, and I would expect that even the honourable senator could appreciate that point. Senator Mason again raised an issue with regard to trees. It might help if I explain to Senator Mason that originally, prior to the Whitlam Government’s coming to power in 1972, generally speaking expenditure on clearing land of all kinds was deductible. Following the amendments made to the legislation, I think in 1973, those costs were allocated and amortised over a 10-year period, so 10 per cent of the expenditure could be claimed in any year. That is the situation that applies to trees under this Bill. The Bill does not seek to amend the existing legislation in that respect. My comments stand with regard to the earlier matter concerning vegetable pests and the destruction of weed or plant growth which is detrimental to the land. I see Senator Mason nodding his head; presumably he agrees with that.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Senator Messner, has conceded implicitly that the cost of what might very loosely be called the soil conservation measures in this legislation will be something more than Sim. We knew all along that even if it were restricted to apply exclusively to what is clearly soil conservation, that is, survey work and mechanical work–

Senator Messner:

– Not for those that were included in the promise.

Senator WALSH:

– Oh, it is Sim for the survey and mechanical work. As far as salinity is concerned, the only additional cost to revenue pursuant to this legislation will be for expenditure incurred in the reclamation of saline land which was purchased in a saline condition by the present owner. The point I made earlier during the second reading debate was that under the existing taxation law - there have been numerous rulings by commissioners in various States on this - reclamation expenditure on land which became saline during the ownership of the present owner already qualifies as a deduction from income. So, as far as salinity is concerned, the additional cost to revenue applies only to that land which was purchased by its present owner in a saline condition and upon which reclamation work is carried out.

What the Government very loosely calls soil conservation will cost the revenue something more than Sim a year; Senator Messner has not told us how much more than Sim a year. I would like the Minister to tell us also whether he still stands by the pre-election assertion by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that the plant depreciation provisions would cost $7m. In that section of the Bill no changes have been made to what the Prime Minister forecast in his policy speech.

I turn now to the other provisions of the Bill, or to the things that the Government has not included in this Bill and the reasons we still believe very strongly that the whole Bill should be withdrawn and about 80 per cent of it should be excised. Senator Teague, Senator Messner and Senator Watson support the Bill. Senator Watson is the guy who, when he spoke in support of this Bill still thought that it would provide immediate and complete deductions from taxable income for expenditure on draining wetlands in Tasmania. He thought that, even though the rest of the Government senators make a virtue of the fact that such a provision has been excised from the Bill. Either way. Senator Watson supports the Bill. Leaving that aside, do all those Government senators who claim to support the Bill believe that the provision of the 20 per cent depreciation allowance will enhance the economic efficiency of agriculture? lt will encourage farmers to buy more new plant and equipment when the evidence is quite decisive that already farmers have a propensity to over-invest in plant and equipment. They do not need to be encouraged to invest even more by stupid taxation laws like this and even more stupid investment allowances.

Do they know what these provisions will cost the revenue? I can answer the second question: No, they do not. The Minister might know or somebody in the Department of the Treasury might be able to make a reasonable estimate. 1 do not believe that information will be made available to the chamber because it will contradict what the Prime Minister said in his election campaign. Do they believe increased expenditure on plant and equipment in agriculture will enhance economic efficiency? People may believe whatever they like, but if they believe that it demonstrates their ignorance of the industry. To anyone who has actually looked at the facts it is quite clear that it would have the opposite effect.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I make a couple of final points. I am obliged to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Messner) for his remarks about tree clearing and the provisions of the legislation. I am afraid that I still am not finally persuaded that in some circumstances a case could not be made by a person that animal and vegetable pests could include stands of trees. I cannot see that there is an exclusion in the Bill. 1 would not think the other provisions would necessarily exclude some sort of deal being done or some sort of claim being made under this paragraph for a deduction for that specifically. After all, it appears in the Bill in its present form. The whole point of eradication or extermination of animal or vegetable pests obviously refers to the destruction of the native flora and fauna of this country. 1 just throw in that comment.

Finally, again on the point relating to proposed new section 75D (1) (e), I did ask the Minister whether the erection of fences included those fences erected around areas of trees designed to control salinity. When the committee of which I am a member was in the Murray River area a number of farmers told us that that was something they particularly wanted, it was enormously important to them. The other thing they wanted that is not provided for in this Bill was some sort of deduction for the cost of actually planting trees to control erosion. Of course, that now is known internationally as one of the main and most effective methods of control. I ask the Minister: Why was tree planting not. included in this provision; indeed, does that paragraph on fencing include fencing around young trees that have been planted by farmers?

Senator MESSNER:
South AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– In reply to Senator Mason, with regard to paragraph (e) of proposed new section 75d ( 1 ) concerning the erection of fences, it seems clear to me that fences that are erected around a stand of trees that are designed to control the erosion of land come within that provision. I am not giving a legal opinion, but it would seem to me to be included in that provision. With regard to the second matter on tree planting, I do not know that it could be caught by any part of this provision. It might be something that I should look at a little further and come back later to the honourable senator.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– My question is whether the Government is standing by its pre-election estimate of $7m as the cost of the 20 per cent depreciation allowance.

Senator MESSNER:
South AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I have further advice in reply to Senator Mason. I think tree planting may come under paragraph (d) of proposed new section 75D ( 1 ) as it relates to preventing or combating soil erosion’. As to Senator Walsh’s point, as he was not discussing this Bill or this section of the Bill and the point that he raised is not particularly relevant to this Bill or to any matter concerning soil conservation, I hope that he might take my assurance that I will look into the matter further and provide him with an answer later.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– Just a minute! I think I should explain the content of the Bill first. Certainly it is concerned with what the Government loosely calls soil conservation’ but it is also concerned with the provision of a 20 per cent annual depreciation allowance for plant and equipment used in primary production; so this is relevant to the Bill.

Senator MESSNER:
South AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– Indeed, I was preoccupied with my discussion on a specific clause of the Bill and I overlooked the fact that that point was included in the Bill as a whole. I apologise to Senator Walsh in that respect. However, if he will allow me to take that point on notice, I will reply to him later. However, I ask whether he will allow me to take that point on notice. I will reply to him later.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 392

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Opposition does not oppose the provisions of the Parliamentary Secretaries Bill which is now before the Senate but we regard it as somewhat of a novel experiment that the Government has seen fit to bring down such a piece of legislation with such haste and without any preelection promise. It is as well to recall that this is not the first occasion on which the conservative parties have resorted to this type of device or move, whatever we like to call it, in the post-war history of the Parliament. For example, in August 1971 the McMahon Government appointed half a dozen Assistant Ministers whose subsequent claim to fame is always to have the ‘Honourable’ tag to their names. Of the six that the Government appointed in that period only two subsequently moved on to the exalted position of a Minister of the Crown.

One is entitled to wonder about this experimentation. Having sat through the debate on the previous piece of legislation to which the Senate gave consideration, one is entitled to say that perhaps the Government does need a few more parliamentary hangers-on or parliamentary liaison officers, whatever name one likes to give them, to assist Ministers when they decide to change their minds in midstream. However, I believe the argument finally boils down to this: If we understand it correctly, the Bill may be designed to provide members of the Parliament who are not Ministers with some opportunity to participate more in the Executive arm of government, to take over some sense of responsibility from Ministers or to contribute productively to the Executive arm of government. However, the fact is that the style of duty, the level of authority and the category or status available are extraordinarily limited, as we well know, by the Constitution. As the legislation does not specifically describe the duties of the proposed Parliamentary Secretaries, one can regard the move that is contemplated by the Government only as part of some experiment. Of course, we would say that, if there is to be experimentation, then parliamentary reform is necessary across the board and not just in this area, which is limited by the restrictive provisions of the Constitution.

Even my party has looked in the last year or so at the whole question of how to establish better ways of involving the back bench in the activities of the government of the day. We looked at the possible creation of Assistant Ministers. We looked at the way in which back benchers, who after all are the greatest proportion of those who sit on the Government side, may be involved in a more effective way in the administration of government. Of course, in Opposition one does not have quite that problem. Certainly in government there is a need to bring the back bench much closer to the Executive, as was indicated by the previous debate, when it was only by some mischance that legislative effects which would have been quite disastrous were averted in this chamber.

We hope that this Bill is not an exercise in futility. That is why the Opposition does not oppose it. We will be looking at its operation very carefully to see exactly what the Government’s experiences in this area are and to see whether it can be the start of a more genuine attempt to improve the whole way in which public administration at the national level in this country is undertaken. We are not sure whether the appointment of Assistant Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, ministerial secretaries, liaison officers or whatever other name we like to give them, is the only weakness in the way in which the Parliament operates and particularly the way in which the Executive operates. Are such people merely to be shufflers of papers? Are they to shake hands with members of visiting groups or with dignitaries? Are they to represent Ministers at functions or perhaps to read their speeches? Such an appointment may provide some diverting satisfaction for a member of parliament, but that is very much in the short term. There is little opportunity for most members of parliament to contribute productively and creatively to the way in which the Parliament operates. I think even the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Messner), who is at the table, would agree with me that both Opposition and Government members have a very frustrating role and that it is difficult to impact the decisions of the Executive of the day.

We hope that this Bill is not a sop to the restiveness that seems to be evident in the Government ranks. We hope that it will not provide jobs for the boys, because after all there are no girls on the Government side in the House of Representatives. Of course, we hope that it is not a sop and that it is not just a device by which a couple of disappointed members on the Government benches can be given some status over and above their being members of the back bench. We consider this to be an important area but also one of enormous uncertainty. The creation of such an office is not helped by the certainty of legal opinion which creates problems for the Parliament and for the government of the day because there seems to be some conflict about what the Parliament can do in respect of elevating ordinary members of parliament to somewhere between that role and a role in the Executive itself.

I turn to the views of Professor Enid Campbell and Professor Sawer. I am not a lawyer and, therefore, I can only relate my remarks to a layman’s interpretation of the obvious legal complexities that exist. When 1 look at the list of other honourable senators who will participate in this debate I can see that the lawyers will have something to say about the legal difficulties. The views that have been expressed by Professor Campbell and Professor Sawer cast some doubts on the rights of the Parliament. Of course, another important opinion was given in in 1 958 by Douglas Menzies. He stated:

Where there is no payment of salary but expenses are allowed 1 think difficult questions could arise. 1 think that a daily allowance of a fixed amount to cover expenses might well be regarded as constituting an offence of profit within the meaning of section 44, sub-section 4. But I would not think so, if there were nothing beyond the reimbursement of actual outofpocket expenses.

Of course the words ‘out of pocket expenses’ are words which lawyers and legal personnel will canvas ad infinitum. Clause 5 of this Bill provides that the appropriate allowances which have been determined by the Remuneration Tribunal will be the sorts of out of pocket expenses allowed to parliamentary secretaries. If this provision were contested I wonder how well it would stand up. In the event of parliamentary secretaries accepting such allowances, I wonder how well the constitutionality of their appointments would stand up if it were established that the allowances were generally exceeding the actual out of pocket expenses they had incurred.

We do not contest the principle that if members of the back bench are elevated to a status beyond their normal parliamentary duties to assist Ministers and so incur out of pocket expenses they are entitled to reimbursement. That is the problem of the Government and the Parliament in considering this legislation. From experience one can conclude that there are instances where this can happen. A sagacious member may be very careful in the way in which he incurs expenses in relation to his appointment. He could consider the out of pocket expenses available to him as a reimbursement under the determination of the Remuneration Tribunal. He could make savings which could actually result in a profit. In other words, if he were paid a daily allowance when representing the Minister at a function in Adelaide and he decided to stay with a relative would he be entitled to draw his out of pocket expenses? The allowance received by a member of parliament could exceed the actual out of pocket expenses incurred by him in the discharge of his duties. We on the Opposition front bench who have fought for daily allowances specifically for fulfilling responsibilities as shadow Ministers have had to present a very strong case to the Remuneration Tribunal to gain recognition of this fact. Very careful limitations have been placed upon it by the Tribunal.

These are matters which we should look at very carefully. If it is shown that the work load of Ministers is such that they need assistants I cannot understand why, firstly, the opportunity within the Constitution is not taken to make appointments with appropriate remuneration, allowing for a proper range of administrative responsibility. No one could argue that the responsibilities of some Ministers are tremendously greater than those of others. I do not propose to enter the area of importance of particular portfolios, but some have a much wider range of responsibilities than others. Senator Evans and I were members of a committee of our Caucus which has looked at this matter closely for the last year. We are aware of the need for some change in these areas. Changes have to be made in accordance with the Constitution which is, of course, very difficult. If we find a need for the reform of our whole Westminster system I think there ought to be a bipartisan approach to it. We on this side of the chamber would be prepared to look at such changes in the Constitution as would provide for better public administration in this country, particularly at the parliamentary level. The Government could count on a degree of flexibility and support on these issues. However, in my view, we should not make an ad hoc approach as this legislation does but introduce a series of proposals to bring about reform in the whole parliamentary institution. 1 think the time has arrived for this matter to be seriously examined. Unfortunately, this has not been done by the Government. Yet we are proceeding in building a new parliament house with a massive outlay of public funds. We may well find that changes in the parliamentary institution will necessitate changes even in the way in which the new parliament house is built. Obviously that possibility has not been very seriously examined by the Government or by the parliament itself. The divisions created by the infamous act of Mr Fraser, Sir John Kerr and others in 1975 were not conducive to people considering things in a dispassionate way, which the operation of Parliament requires. All the criticisms that have been voiced over a considerable number of years about the way in which Parliament operates have not been able to be considered because of the divisiveness created by the grab for power which is synonymous with Mr Fraser.

Senator Evans:

– Not to mention that lot on the other side of the chamber.

Senator GIETZELT:

– Of course, an infamous role was played by the overwhelming majority of Government senators on the other side of this chamber. Clearly, they were involved in a conspiracy to bring down a properly elected government. Honourable senators should make no bones about it; that will come out in due course. On the best available advice to us, I believe that it is compatible for the Government to appoint a Minister assisting a Minister for a particular department as a Minister of state to assist in the administration of the Department. By providing a small office within the Department of the principal Minister and, obviously, the necessary secretarial staff and other back-up staff, the constitutional problem we found in our examination of this matter can be avoided. I believe that possibility ought to be explored. Everybody would be much happier if the proposals were explored. If they stood up they should be applied. We do not contest the view that many Ministers have too much work, work that is beyond the reasonable bounds of one person to handle. But there is a task to be done. Let us do it properly and ensure that the people taking up some of the excessive work load are able to do so in a fulfilling way in circumstances which will maintain an incentive for them to contribute their maximum effort in all respects to see that their work is properly carried out.

It is in that context that the Opposition does not oppose the legislation. However, we find some aspects of the legislation hilarious. With the greatest respect for the honourable members and senators chosen, there is no doubt that the legislation represents something of a safety valve for the Liberal-National Country Party coalition. When one looks at the machinations that occurred in the coalition following the election, one can easily see why the appointments had to be made and the necessity for the legislation. Something had to be done for the South Australian representatives. I hope that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs who is in the chamber will not take this personally but some things ought to be mentioned and this is the place in which to mention them. Pressures were building up in the Coalition. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) had to face up to responsibilities in this area. He did not pick the obvious person to represent South Australia in the Ministry. I concede that he has the responsibility and the right to select whomever he wants because that is the way the Liberal and conservative parties operate. He did not pick Senator Don Jessop for a whole variety of reasons which honourable senators know. Senator Jessop exercises a degree of independence from time to time as do some other members of the Government parties.

The same could be said about Senator Rae. If you have any independence, as far as Prime Minister Fraser is concerned that is the end of you. You stay exactly where you are at the end of the rank; you do not move up. That could be said not only of the appointments that have been made in respect of the parliamentary secretaries but also of some other appointments that supposedly are in the pipeline. Ian Wilson had to be provided for. He was not able to make the grade, for a whole number of reasons that I do not want to canvass, but Government senators will know what I am talking about. Of course, we have the subjective problems to face. Therefore, we look at this legislation, not as a measure designed to fulfil a vacuum or a need in the parliamentary process, but as a safety valve to overcome some of the problems of the government of the day. Consequently we as an Opposition have to accept that the Government has an honest motive, whilst many of us have our grave doubts about whether the motivation is in fact as suggested by the Government in the second reading speech. This is an innovation or an experiment and the Opposition will not oppose the legislation.

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

– I welcome this legislation. I have long recommended the introduction of parliamentary secretaries. There are many reasons for this. One is that we have too many departments and too many Ministers. At the moment we have 26. I think that we could, with benefit, restructure our organisation into about 20 departments. I am well aware, as are all honourable senators, of the political pressures on any Prime Minister to have more departments, of the need to foster talent among back benchers and to back Ministers and of the need to recognise political services and of the need for State representation. These are all factors that bear on any Prime Minister or party. The one problem that is curable is the necessity to have relatively small departments so that they are within the ministerial power - the ministerial span of control - of the Minister selected. This can be done by giving the Minister political support, which is achieved in this case through parliamentary secretaries.

In the recent past, until the Parliamentary Secretaries Bill was introduced, we attempted to achieve this by making each Minister responsible for one department, in many cases, with a Minister assisting another Minister responsible for a quite separate function. I see no objection to having a structure in the Ministry whereby there is a small Cabinet of Ministers for superdepartments, if I may use that expression - it has been tried in Britain - and Ministers outside the Cabinet who are responsible for their function to a senior Minister in the Cabinet. That is quite different from what has gone on- in the recent past. We had Ministers assisting who also had other ministerial duties and who were responsible for quite different functions from those of the other Minister. I do not think that is a satisfactory system and I do not think it has worked very well. In the past - it has gone on for much longer than Senator Gietzelt thought - there have been many attempts to solve this problem. We have had assistant Ministers, honorary Ministers, Ministers without portfolio, parliamentary undersecretaries, and parliamentary secretaries. In fact, this practice dates from the first Parliament; it had one of the variants of these. There always have been difficulties about such appointments. The main difficulty has been the question of payment. Section 44 of the Constitution is relevant. In part it states:

Any person who -

Holds any office of profit under the Crown . . . shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

This Bill avoids that problem by not offering any payment as such to the parliamentary secretaries. These parliamentary secretaries will hold office under the Crown. I think there can be no doubt about that because of their method of appointment by the Prime Minister- in his capacity as chief Minister of the Crown and the fact that the substantial purpose of their appointment is to facilitate the work of a department of the Crown. I think there can be no doubt that these parliamentary secretaries will hold office under the Crown, but they will not hold an office of profit under the Crown because of their method of remuneration. They will have no payment for their services. What they shall be refunded are such expenses as they reasonably incur in respect of their holding, or of performing the functions of, that appointment.

Senator McLaren:

– Who determines what is reasonably expected? That is what I want the answer to; who determines that?

Senator HAMER:

– That is a matter which I do not think will cause the difficulties that Senator McLaren appears to anticipate, but I think it is established - I think that when one of Senator McLaren’s colleagues, Senator Evans, speaks he probably will agree with me - that this will not constitute an office of profit under the Crown. I think that Senator McLaren might wait for his colleague’s opinion on this matter. He may disagree with him, too. I will await with interest for Senator McLaren to interject, as I have no doubt he will, when Senator Evans speaks on the subject. Another point 1 wish to raise is that the name parliamentary secretary’ is not, in my view, a very satisfactory title. I am bound to say that 1 cannot think of a better one. This individual will not in any sense be a secretary to the Minister and his work will not be and cannot be in the Parliament. Admittedly, he will be a member of the Parliament, but the Minister must, in my view, under our system and our customs, remain the person responsible to Parliament for his department. The activities of the parliamentary secretary will be outside the Parliament. I wish I could think of a better title for it, but I merely wish to record that 1 think it is an unsatisfactory one.

What can the parliamentary secretary do? In the second reading speech of the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) his duties were described as undertaking, as requested, a range of duties, including assistance with correspondence and other papers, liaison with other members of parliament and meetings with delegations and clients, departmental authorities, and other representational activities. He can do those, certainly, but there are really many more things which an effective parliamentary secretary could do. What he can do is to increase the span of political administrative control of the Minister. If a Minister really is to do his job as being responsible for his department - he is responsible for the efficiency of that department, for its morale, for its meeting community needs and expectations - he needs a very wide range of political control, which an individual has great difficulty in achieving. Appointment of parliamentary secretaries provides a wonderful opportunity to widen the span of political control of Ministers.

One department to which this would be particularly applicable is the Department of Defence, for which a single Minister now is attempting to undertake the tasks previously performed by four-and-a-bit Ministers. I think this is well beyond the capacity of any individual. What we need in the defence area are representatives of the Minister - representatives of the Government - who can constantly be available to visit Service establishments, witness exercises and look at the problems of morale. No one can do those tasks and at the same time be responsible for the administration of, probably, the most complex department of state.

Another advantage of the appointment of parliamentary secretaries which 1 have not heard mentioned is that it will give us a chance to look at the administrative quality of potential Ministers before they are appointed to the Ministry. Ministers need two qualities. First, they must have political skill and, second, they must have administrative capability. The political skill is reasonably easy to evaluate before appointment; that is, the work and the political skill of a back bencher before appointment can be and are assessed. But there is no usual way in which his administrative capability can be assessed. It is not a matter of intelligence. People of the highest intelligence have turned out to be deplorable administrators. I draw attention to one with whom honourable senators opposite would be familiar. Mr Whitlam, a man of commanding intelligence, was a deplorable administrator. The recently defeated President of the United States, Mr Carter, is obviously a man of high intelligence but 1 think he was shown to be a very poor administrator.

I am not quite sure why this is so. It may be, as Napoleon said of his defeated enemies, that they saw too many things at once, or it may be - this is a common failing of lawyers - that they think all they have to do is give a judgment on a problem that comes up to them and that is administration. In fact, it is not administration at all. Administration is finding out all the relevant facts, sorting the significant ones from the insignificant and, most important of all, seeing that a decision, once given is implemented. In all of these tasks, parliamentary secretaries with their political awareness could play a significant role in supporting a Minister.

Senator McLaren:

– What you are saying is that this is a proving ground for potential Ministers at the expense of the public purse.

Senator HAMER:

– No, there would be no involvement of any significance of the public purse. I am waiting with interest for the honourable senator’s colleague’s assessment, but the expense to the public purse, I think would be minimal. Reasonable expenses will remain reasonable.

Senator Evans:

– It would be minimal if they were, paid what they were worth.

Senator HAMER:

– I do not think payment is the significant thing. I think people are looking for the opportunity to participate, to show their capability. This measure will provide that, I hope, for a large number of back bench members. If we assess the key quality of administrative ability before appointment we avoid the embarrassment, which happened a great deal in the previous Government, of finding out after appointment that people are not capable of administration and then having the problem of either leaving them there as proven incompetent administrators or removing them with all the consequential political embarrassments. The proving time as parliamentary secretaries would remove that problem. I strongly support this measure. I hope that its application will become widespread throughout the Ministry. I believe that it will improve the quality of future Ministers and the performance of present ones.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– This is another chapter in the long history of attempts, nearly all of them quite unsuccessful, to get some rationality into the organisation and administration of the Executive Government and in particular to enable the provision of some political-level assistance for Ministers with particularly large, overburdened, intricate or controversial portfolios. The obvious solution to this problem, which in principle has always suggested itself, is simply the appointment of certain Ministers as Assistant Ministers with full ministerial powers and functional responsibilities in some particular Executive area, but subordinate in the hierarchy to another Minister in the same general policy area.

Thus one might have, to use Senator Hamer’s example, in the defence area, which is conspicuously overburdened for any Minister, even one of greater talents than the incumbent, a Minister for Defence supported by an Assistant Minister for Defence (Personnel) and another Assistant Minister for Defence (Material) or (Equipment). Again, in the social security area, where there is a number of smaller portfolios at the moment one might as an alternative and more rational arrangement have simply a Minister for Social Security supported by Assistant Ministers for Social Security (Health) and Social Security (Veterans’ Affairs). Again, in the industry and commerce area, which is another familiar breeding ground for a miscellany of Mickey Mouse departments, one could have, rather than a series of full-blown ministries in their own right, a Minister for Industry and Commerce supported by Assistant Ministers for, respectively, Productivity, Science and Technology and Business and Consumer Affairs.

The difficulty which has always been perceived to stand in the way of any such more rational organisation is the provisions of the Constitution. Section 44 (iv) disqualifies from the continued position of a member of parliament any member who holds a ‘office of profit under the Crown’, except where the office of profit in question is that of one of the Queen’s Ministers of state. The further relevant constitutional provision of section 64 identifies the Queen’s Ministers of state as those who are appointed by the GovernorGeneral ‘to administer . . . Departments of Slate of the Commonwealth’. Accordingly, the view has been taken that it is necessary for someone to be a Minister of state exercising formal ministerial powers and functional responsibilities in his own right to have some particular department of state to administer solely in his own right.

As Senator Hamer acknowledged, the only way in which it has been found possible in practice, to date anyway, to get around this particular limitation imposed by the Constitution is to have people appointed as Ministers administering in their own right some particular department of state gazetted and established as such, but at the same time exercising an assistance role to some other Minister in a more substantial area. Thus, for example, Senator Messner, who is at the table at the moment, has primary responsibility for the Mickey Mouse Department of Veterans’ Affairs, but has additional ministerial responsibility as the Minister assisting the Treasurer. We wait with fascination to see how he performs, particularly in the latter category. One hopes that he will do a better job in this chamber than the Minister whose representational role the Treasury is.

The existence of these constitutional provisions and the limited way in which for the most part they have been interpreted and applied in the past have been a matter for continued controversy over the years. This controversy is the product of a number of things. It is a product, for a start, of the lack of foresight of the founding fathers who wrote these definitions in an excessively technically limited way, although I suppose they can hardly be blamed for that. It has been a product of the undue deference successive generations of politicians and lawyers have displayed to the opinions and the language of those founding fathers. It is a product, further, of the frozen character of so much of our Constitution, including these provisions, and the general unwillingness of Commonwealth governments of any colour to initiate constitutional amendments, no matter how obviously desirable they might appear to be. Furthermore - this is the point on which I wish to concentrate for just a few moments - it is a product of the lack of adventurousness which successive governments over the whole course of this century have shown in endeavouring to get around the existing constitutional provisions as they now stand. An awful lot of obfuscatory nonsense has been talked about the meaning and application of these particular constitutional provisions and what they do and do not allow governments to do in establishing a more rational hierarchy of ministerial authority.

I do not wish now to go into any of the detail, any of the discussion of particular heavyweight constitutional authorities and their views and counterviews. All I want to do is simply state quite succinctly three or four points as I see them in terms of what these constitutional provisions mean and what they allow governments to do. I take the occasion to encourage governments, not only the present government but also a future Labor Government - the Australian Labor Party has been equally timid in its previous incarnations about just this problem - to be a little more adventurous than they have been in the past in using the provisions of the Constitution as they now stand pending what would be a better longer term solution; that is, the rewriting of the provisions themselves.

I wish to state in three or four points what I think the present constitutional situation is, perhaps answering along the way some of the questions that have been raised, particularly by Senator Hamer. I think the first point is that a parliamentarian clearly cannot receive any additional remuneration for acting as an Assistant Minister or a parliamentary secretary or undersecretary, however one cares to describe it, without actually being appointed as a Minister administering or participating in the administration of some department of state. So much is clear and I think so much is in uncontroversial.

The second point I make is that equally clearly there is no constitutional barrier whatsoever to a parliamentarian being appointed as a Parliamentary Secretary, a Parliamentary Under Secretary or an Assistant Minister. I do not think the terminology matters - it has no magic to it - provided that person receives no extra remuneration for so acting. There is a little bit of magic in the word ‘remuneration’. It is important to distinguish between expenses on the one hand and something amounting to salary-type remuneration on the other. It pains me to do so, but I am obliged to concede that Senator Hamer is on rather firmer legal ground than my friend and colleague Senator McLaren in this respect. Provided expenses are expenses properly so-called, identified as such by the Remuneration Tribunal and identified as such under legislative authority, I see no difficulty whatsoever about the constitutional safety of provisions of the kind that are contained in the present Bill.

Senator McLaren:

– 1 was not disputing the constitutional side. I was referring to the cost to the public purse.

Senator EVANS:

– I take that point on board very strongly. In that respect Senator McLaren undoubtedly had a clear victory on points, if not a technical knock-out, over Senator Hamer. The trouble, however, with that kind of an arrangement is that giving a person a position of this kind gives him neither formal authority, real prestige, status nor anything else. One does run into the danger of creating what has been described in the other place and here today by Senator Gietzelt as merely factotums exercising some hollow role of no real practical or any other kind of significance.

The third point I want to make quickly is that there is no constitutional barrier, as I see it - I understood Senator Hamer to be making this point - to a parliamentarian being appointed and remunerated fully as a Minister and yet in practice playing merely an assistant’s role. For example, there could be one or more persons with the title ‘Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence’. If the very cautious view is taken that every Minister thus appointed has to have his own department of state, that could be accommodated by establishing in the defence context, which I am giving by way of example, a ‘Department of the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence’, which department of state need not necessarily have any bureaucratic assistance, and certainly no more than a handful of such appointees, and need not have heading it a bureaucrat who is at the same level of remuneration as an ordinary permanent head. That is an option which Senator Gietzelt also canvassed. It is an option which has been remarkably little taken advantage of in our constitutional and administrative history to date. It is unnecessary, in other words, to appoint someone in the first instance to a Mickey Mouse department in order to give him an assistant’s role elsewhere. In my view it is very simple by that device to appoint him to head the ‘Department of the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence’, or whatever it is.

The final point that I would make, which goes perhaps a little further than what is again being generally received as wisdom, is this: There is almost certainly, in my view, no constitutional barrier against more than one Minister being appointed to administer a given department of state within the existing language of section 44 and, more particularly, section 64 of the Constitution. Within that department the responsibilities would need to be allocated between those various Ministers, no doubt on some hierarchial basis. I can see no constitutional barrier to that happening. I think that is the view of Professor Campbell, even though it does not seem to be a view which has prevailed hitherto with the Attorney-General’s Department.

I remind the Senate, if it has forgotten, that this whole question is presently under review by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs as part of its larger reference on the subject of sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution - the qualifications and disqualifications of members of parliament. I hope that Committee will come up with a rewrite of sections 44 and 45 which will sweep away some of the accumulated garbage of past practice and precedent and will provide a more rational foundation for the future. I think it is time we all adopted a much more relaxed and constructive approach to constitutional reform generally. I hope this is one area where there will soon be such changes made to the text of the Constitution as will make completely unnecessary the kind of half-hearted ad hoc exercise which is involved in this Bill.

Senator MESSNER:
South AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I thank honourable senators for their contribution and wish the Bill a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– What will be reasonable expenses incurred by an Assistant Minister until such time as the Remuneration Tribunal makes a recommendation after the Remuneration Tribunals Act is altered?

Sitting suspended from 6.2 to 8 p.m.

Senator McLAREN:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner I had started to ask a question and as I was walking out of the chamber the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Messner) told me that he had the answer to the question although really I had not finished asking it. I would hope that in the future when we on this side ask questions without notice he will have the information at his fingertips just as quickly. I want to finish posing the question and then I will be happy to have the answer which I understand he has. I am concerned that under clause 5 of the Bill the reference to the Remuneration Tribunal is to be amended to the ‘Remuneration and Allowances Tribunal’. But until such time as the Tribunal meets and brings down a recommendation to this Parliament about the middle of next year the level of the allowance for these parliamentary secretaries or assistant ministers, whatever one may like to call them, will have to be set by regulation. Clause 4 (2) states:

  1. . a Parliamentary Secretary to a Minister of State shall be reimbursed out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund such expenses as he reasonably incurs in respect of his holding, or performing the functions of, that appointment.

Senator Hamer said that these were honorary positions. By way of interjection I said ‘Well, they are not honorary positions because these people are to be entitled to expenses’. My colleague Senator Evans sided with Senator Hamer and said he was correct. It probably is correct under the Constitution but in my mind it is not correct to say that these people are in honorary positions. They cannot be in honorary positions when they are able to claim expenses for services rendered. I want to know to what expenses these parliamentary secretaries will be entitled. Will they have entitlements in the form of extra office space or extra staff? Will extra office accommodation be provided for them both in the Parliament and back in their own States? Will Mr Wilson have extra office space in King William Street in Adelaide? Will Mr Lloyd have extra office space in his electorate? Will parliamentary secretaries be entitled to a car, as is a Minister? Will they get overnight allowances? An ordinary member has to meet his overnight accommodation expenses out of his electorate allowance. I want answers to all of those questions.

Senator Hamer said that a position of parliamentary secretary would be a good proving ground for members who wished to be considered for the Ministry at some later date. During the suspension of the sitting for dinner I looked up the Hansard report of a similar debate which took place some years ago in the House of Representatives. I was attracted to a remark by my erstwhile parliamentary colleague Fred Daly. Fred asked Mr McMahon, I think it was, whether a delegate to the Liberal Party State Council meeting in Melbourne recently described Assistant. Ministers as eunuchs and mules - sired by panic out of expediency’. I think that ties in very well with what Senator Gietzelt was saying. He suggested that this Bill was a pay-off for the people who could not be found a place in the Ministry. I notice that

Senator Messner is laughing, but I think my interjection at the time Senator Hamer was speaking was that it does not provide a training ground. My parliamentary colleague from South Australia served as a shadow Minister for quite some time; yet when the spoils of office were being handed out he was overlooked. I am referring to Senator Young.

I do not want to take up the time of the Committee but I think the answer to my question may be available. Senator Hamer also suggested that if the Labor Party in office had used parliamentary secretaries or assistant ministers we would not have had to replace so many Ministers. To avoid taking up the time of the Committee I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard part of the speech recorded at page 1462 of 16 September 1971 in a debate in the House of Representatives when Mr Daly was speaking on Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ). He described the number of changes in the Ministry of the time, and I think it is an all-time record. Perhaps those people who are interested will read those remarks at their leisure. They can see how many Ministers previous Liberal governments changed in the space of three or four years. What they did far outweighs anything that ever happened in the Whitlam Government.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

Let us have a look at the ministerial circus that has brought the Budget before us. In less than 4 years Australia has had 3 Prime Ministers, 4 Ministers for Defence, S Ministers for Foreign Affairs and 3 Treasurers. Even since March - 6 months ago - we have had 2 Prime Ministers and another one is coming up.

Since March we have had 3 Ministers for Foreign Affairs, 3 Ministers for Defence, 3 Ministers for Health, 3 Ministers for Education and Science, 3 Attorneys-General, 2 Treasurers, 2 Ministers for Labour and National Service, 2 Ministers for Immigration, 2 Ministers for the Navy, 2 Ministers for Housing, 2 Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs and 2 Ministers for Supply. This makes 31 changes at more than one a week. If that is not a razzle-dazzle and a musical chairs proposition then I am a Dutchman. This has all happened without an election. It is no longer true to say in the Liberal Party that it is easier to get into Cabinet than to get out of it. Members and Ministers are giddy and uncertain. This is a record of instability without precedent in Australian history and intolerable in this democracy of ours. There has been purge after purge. Ministers have not been chosen on ability but on how they voted. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham), who is interjecting, could not pick a winner anyway with all of those changes.

It is said that the staff of the Ministers are asking for danger money such is the precarious nature of their job. It is known in Canberra today that departmental heads have rung the Minister and could not remember who was there yesterday. This is the Government that tells us that it knows how to run the nation. What a tragedy - what a shocking state of affairs! This is the Government that boasts of stability and leadership. We heard the Prime Minister say during question time this morning that we want statesmanship in this country. We do want statesmanship but we will not get it from those changes.

There is a Ministry of 27 and there are 6 Assistant Ministers as well as a Cabinet in exile on the back benches. One cannot say that we are not under-governed in this Parliament. Let us have a look at the Cabinet in exile on the back bench. This group is made up of the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), an ex-Prime Minister; the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes), an ex-Attorney-General; the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury), who was a Treasurer and a Minister for Foreign Affairs; the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), a former Minister for the Navy; the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), a former Minister for the Navy; the honourable member for Ballaarat (Mr Erwin), who was the Leader of the House and a Minister for Air; the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer), a former Minister for the Army; and not to leave the Country Party out of it, the right honourable member for Fisher (Sir Charles Adermann), a former Minister for Primary Industry. Looking them over, I find they are a much brighter lol than those who sit on the front bench at this time. That is not saying much but it is the best compliment can pay them.

To add to our woes, with 3 1 changes and a Cabinet in exile, we have 6 Assistant Ministers. They are the honourable members for Cook (Mr Dobie), Wimmera (Mr King), Cowper (Mr Robinson), Corangamite (Mr Street), Senator Marriott and above all else the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Macleay), the revolutionary republican Rhodesian Mounted Rifles man. He campaigned against the sovereignty of the Queen with the Rhodesian people. I know that Ministers want assistance but putting that lot in to help them is a frightening prospect for anybody in this country.

Senator PETER BAUME:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · New South Wales · LP

– Senator McLaren has raised a number of questions which quite properly do arise in a consideration of this Bill. I will try to answer them seriatim. The honourable senator might indicate if 1 leave any matters unanswered and I will try to come back to them. The parliamentary secretaries will be entitled only to reasonable expenses. They will be able to claim the expenses they actually incur in the pursuit of their duties. I think as Senator McLaren has already indicated, as an interim measure allowances will be set by regulation as soon as the Bill is assented to. Parliamentary secretaries will be reimbursed by the Department of Administrative Services on the basis of receipts which are actually submitted, and a maximum level will be set on the amount which they can claim as reasonable expenses, which I am advised will be the same as a senator’s or member’s travelling allowance. That is the maximum they will be able to claim. As soon as the Bill becomes law the Remuneration Tribunal will be asked to make a determination as to what reasonable expenses should be in the longer term, and at that stage the regulations would cease to have effect. So the regulations are seen as an interim measure until the Tribunal is asked to consider the matter.

The honourable senator asked a number of other questions which I think require an answer. The words ‘and Allowances’ are added in clause 5, as Senator McLaren did point out, really to bring the legislation into line with what has been practice for some time. On the question of extra space, my understanding is - and I have been advised - that no extra space will be provided in the electorates of parliamentary secretaries but that in Parliament House there will be some extra space to allow them to carry out their duties. I understand an extra staff member will be made available to them. They will have no automatic entitlement to a vehicle but when, for example, Mr Wilson is representing the Prime Minister, in the course of his duties as a parliamentary secretary a vehicle would be made available to him. I suppose it is roughly the same as when any honourable senator who is representing someone has a car made available for him to carry out his duty in that official capacity. In carrying out those duties, the Parliamentary Secretary would not be able to claim a travelling allowance but he would be able to claim expenses only up to the determined maximum. I think that covers most of the matters on which Senator McLaren sought answers by way of extra information.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I thank the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Peter Baume) for the explanations he has given me because they have now opened up a very wide field as far as the Opposition is concerned. It now appears to me that the passing of this Bill has paved the way for the Government to get extra assistance both in Parliament House and in the electorate whereas members of the Opposition have had the allocation of staff numbers cut despite the recommendations made for the Opposition. Opposition members who serve on Caucus committees do not have extra staff, nor do they get an allowance. If we have to go to distant places in the interests of the Parliament, whether it be to talk to constituents or to visit mining or farming areas, we get nothing in addition to our electoral allowance. From the answer that the Minister has given we find that these parliamentary secretaries will be reimbursed and, in some cases, provided with transport, which entitlement is quite outside that of any member of parliament. The Minister’s answer gives us an opportunity to make strong claims before the Remuneration Tribunal before it brings down its recommendations next year for some extra assistance to be given to Opposition members. I thank the Minister for his reply.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The answer provided by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Peter Baume) to Senator McLaren’s question clarifies to some extent the problems the Opposition was faced with when it gave consideration to whether it should support or oppose this piece of legislation. 1 indicated in my speech during the second reading debate that the Australian Labor Party generally supported the legislation because it believed it was a step towards providing the Parliament with more resources. Having regard to what Senator Peter Baume has said and having regard to the number of pleas I have made on behalf of the Opposition from time to time - I am sure that in your previous capacity as Government Whip you will recognise this, Mr Temporary Chairman - it ought to be put in the record that the tasks that fall upon members of parliament vary from person to person and from side to side of this chamber. Of course, at present we in the Opposition are suffering a disadvantage as a result of the decision of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to reduce to 10 the establishment of 20 staff which had been previously awarded to the Opposition by the Remuneration Tribunal. Having placed a case before the Remuneration Tribunal over several years and having provided it wilh information concerning the responsibilities that the front bench has in properly performing its function in the Parliament, the Tribunal finally agreed to award each member of the front bench - the number was not to exceed the total number of Ministers on the Government side - additional staff so that they could more adequately perform their parliamentary duties.

I do not want in any way to enter into the controversy or to be critical of the decision of the Prime Minister in this matter, which was to reduce the number of staff from 20 - that was the number of front bench members in the Opposition - to 10. In view of what the Minister said in reply to Senator McLaren’s question, additional resources are available to the Government in the way of parliamentary secretaries. The Government has tremendous resources - they are almost unlimited - with which to carry out its responsibilities to the Parliament and to the community. In a sense there is no limit to what a Minister and his Department can provide in terms of resources. I suppose in a sense there is a limit but in another sense there is almost no limit in that the Government can call upon the total resources of the Department under its jurisdiction.

Bearing in mind that the Government has those resources, I ask those Ministers present to have regard to the situation of the Opposition which literally has no resources. The Opposition put its case to the Remuneration Tribunal on the basis of its responsibilities. For example, in this chamber I have to represent not only my own shadow portfolio but four others and, as such, I represent a wider group than does a government backbencher. It is not unfair for the Opposition to suggest to the Government that Opposition members are entitled at least to some additional staff and resources so that we can properly fulfil the functions of this Parliament. After all, if this place is to work properly we need to have access to resources in the same way that the Government has that access. At present we are in a disadvantaged position in that one staff member has to be shared by two members of the front bench of the Australian Labor Party to carry out their responsibilities in this place.

I have been prompted to raise this matter a little more publicly than previously. I appreciate that there is a measure of understanding in relation to this matter by Government members. If there is to be any equity at all in relation to the matter we have to make a case to the Government - regard should be paid to our bipartisan attitude in respect of the legislation which my party has agreed to support - that there be reciprocal arrangements in regard to the use of the staff of the members of the front bench. If parliamentary democracy is to work effectively and properly we need access to the sorts of resources that will allow us to be a little more effective in carrying out the work of the Parliament. I make the plea that some decision on these matters be made as soon as possible so that we are not in the ludicrous position in which we find ourselves at the moment where we have one shadow Minister in New South Wales sharing a staff member with a person who resides in Perth and similarly a person who resides in Wollongong sharing a staff member with someone who lives in Melbourne. The ludicrous lack of resources available to the Opposition has prompted me to raise publicly matters which I believe ought to be raised publicly, having regard to the fact that the Minister stated in response to Senator McLaren that extra resources will be made available as the result of the passage of this legislation.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I omitted to mention one matter which perhaps I could raise now so that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Peter Baume) will have to make only one reply. The Minister will recall that not so long ago the Remuneration Tribunal recommended the appointment of extra staff for members of parliament when accommodation became available. Until now accommodation has been said not to be available in Parliament House. The Minister has just told us that extra accommodation will be provided for two parliamentary secretaries. I hope that will not be at the expense of the decision of the Remuneration Tribunal which has already said that as soon as accommodation becomes available each back bench member will be entitled to one extra staff. In providing this accommodation for the two parliamentary secretaries - there is nothing to prevent the Government increasing that number - people working in other areas of the Parliament must not suffer.

Honourable senators will be aware of the contentious issue concerning moving some sections of the Parliamentary Library out of the precincts of the Parliament, which will be of further disadvantage particularly to the members of the Opposition. I hope the Government does not intend to create space in the Parliamentary Library for these parliamentary secretaries at the expense of people who utilise that Library. I hope the Minister will take that matter into consideration when he replies.

Senator PETER BAUME:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · New South Wales · LP

– I reiterate that the entitlement to transport of the parliamentary secretaries will be no different from that which applies to a member of parliament on the Government side. A parliamentary secretary would be entitled to transport only if he is representing, say, the Prime Minister in an official capacity. There is no extra transport entitlement for these parliamentary secretaries. In dealing with the question of accommodation I remind honourable senators that the size of the Ministry has been reduced by one. One Minister’s office has become available. That space is being utilised to accommodate the two parliamentary secretaries. Although Senator McLaren’s proposition is a very reasonable one, this move has not meant that any members of parliament have been disadvantaged in any way. There is one fewer Minister, and part of the space used by him has been used.

Senator Gietzelt raised the wider question of provision of staff generally. My understanding is that the staff provided is a matter for government decision, and has always been. The usual course which has been followed has been for negotiations, in the case of the Opposition, between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. That is a course that has been followed and has generally worked well. I hope that that is the kind of course that we can continue to utilise. It may be useful, however, if we undertake to see that the Hansard record of this debate, particularly at the Committee stage, is made available to the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Newman) and to the Prime Minister (Mr

Malcolm Fraser) for their consideration. I think they would want to see it.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 402

AUSTRALIAN WINE AND BRANDY CORPORATION BILL 1980

Second Readings

Debate resumed.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I shall not speak for very long on these three Bills, which are supported by the Opposition. The major Bill establishes the replacement by the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation of the old Australian Wine Board. The Corporation is given power to trade in exports and, subject to ministerial approval, power to borrow funds under Government guarantee. The administrative expenses of the Corporation will be met by a levy, struck on wine makers and distillers, on grapes crushed for the making of wine and brandy. The composition of the Corporation will be six representatives of private and proprietary wine makers, two co-operative wine makers, four wine grape growers and the chairman, who will be appointed by the Commonwealth Government. It may, so we are informed, establish an executive committee of five members, which is a similar number to the number comprising the old Wine Board which the Corporation replaces.

The only other comment that I wish to make on this Bill is that it contains a probably significant new clause, which requires that the members of the Corporation must declare their pecuniary interests and which states that they are ineligible to sit on the Corporation unless they do so. That is a proposition which is particularly welcomed by the Australian Labor Party. We wish that the Fraser Government would apply to itself and its own Ministers the same requirements in regard to declaration of pecuniary interests that it has imposed on the members of the Wine and Brandy Corporation which is about to be established.

Senator PETER BAUME:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - I thank Senator Walsh for his comments. I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 403

REMUNERATION AND ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– I think we were dealing cognately with the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1980 and the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill 1980.

Senator Peter Baume:

– We would appreciate it if they could be dealt with cognately, and we would appreciate an indication whether the questions can be taken together, or will be dealt with separately.

Senator GIETZELT:

– On the surface, the Ministers of State Amendment Bill appears to be of little significance insofar as it and the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill provide for the implementation of the recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal. I think that everybody must surely agree that the establishment of the Remuneration Tribunal by the Whitlam Government involved one piece of legislation that has enjoyed the support of all sections of the Parliament. lt delegated to an independent body, the Remuneration Tribunal, powers to determine the salaries of members of parliament, Ministers of state, and members of the judiciary in the national sphere. The Tribunal’s looking annually at the problems of payments and salaries and allowances to this section of the Public Service, that is the Parliament and the judiciary, has moved the matter out of the cockpit of partisan politics. On the basis of submissions and changes which have occurred as a result of national wage cases, these issues are now dealt with in a much more dispassionate, congenial, and objective way than previously.

We should take this opportunity to look more deeply at some of the principles involved in determining remuneration and resource facilities for members of parliament and Federal judges. I have spoken on numerous occasions over the last couple of years about the haphazard approach that this Government adopts to recommendations of the Tribunal. Far too often the Government has exercised an executive role on the recommendations of the Tribunal. It has decided from time to time to ignore those recommendations - a decision based on its own interpretation of economic conditions - to vary them or to set them aside.

I think the one weakness that exists in the legislation which established the Remuneration Tribunal and its effective work is that it has allowed the Tribunal’s recommendations, whilst they are subject to determination of the Parliament, also to be subject to the decisions of the Executive under the Fraser Administration. Members of parliament - and I should imagine that the facilities are also open to members of the judiciary if they want to take advantage of them - may place a case before the Tribunal. I think it would be fair to say that the Tribunal has exercised a degree of restraint and discretion in this and has displayed a degree of tolerance and understanding of the Government’s attitude with respect to current economic attitudes. It has made representations to the Parliament accordingly. The Opposition takes issue with the Government in that we believe that when the Tribunal’s decision has been made it should be accepted.

The Parliament, as distinct from the Executive, has a right to review the decisions of the Tribunal. In other words, we say to the government of the day - whichever government is in office - that the umpire’s decision should be accepted. The Tribunal deliberates and has an opportunity to hear the case of the parties who have a point of view to put to it. It having done that, we believe that apart from the right of the Parliament which is set out in the legislation, the decision of the Tribunal ought to be accepted. The Government, in from time to time setting aside the umpire’s decision in fact is destroying some of the basic tenets of the legislation. For example, if we were to look at the Commonwealth Government’s submissions on national wage cases we would see that it calls upon the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to reduce the wage increases asked for by the trade union movement. The Government is quite happy to accept the tribunal’s decision when it is made. Sometimes it expresses its dismay with the decision, but it expects the trade union movement to accept that decision also.

In 1979 the Government set aside ministerial salary increases whereas this year it accepted them. Whilst we do not disagree with adequate salaries and resources being provided for Ministers and members, we in the Australian Labor Party call for a degree of consistency in the application of decisions. I remind the Senate of and quote from the Commonwealth Government’s submission in May 1980 to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission when it was dealing with the national wage case. The Commonwealth Government stated:

The Commonwealth continues to support an orderly centralised wage fixation system. Such a system requires that all the participants should recognise that whilst the system can at least in part meet the objectives of all the parties, it also imposes certain obligations on all of the parties. If the obligations are not met then the system will not function effectively. As the Commission has said, such a system requires an equitable sharing of burdens and benefits.

The Government may claim otherwise, but it is a case of having made fish of one and flesh of another. That is what it did with respect to ministerial salaries in 1979. On this occasion, the legislation seeks to accept the decision. At the same time, the Tribunal has decided that judicial remuneration be set apart from the effects of the national wage case decisions. Once again, it appears that the principle is that those who can least afford it carry the burden of the Government’s failed economic policy and the rest benefit inequitably.

For example, the Tribunal in its report argues that it is necessary to advance the salaries of Commonwealth judges by a significant amount in order to restore their relativity with judges of other courts. At the moment the salary paid to the Chief Justice of the Queensland Supreme Court is significantly in advance of that paid to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. It would seem reasonable that judges sitting in courts of similar jurisdictions in all areas of law should receive comparable salaries. A great variation in the salaries paid to judges of State supreme courts would seem to be unjustifiable. These are the sorts of problems that a tribunal has to face up to and make decisions upon.

The Opposition does not oppose these Bills. It is the Opposition’s practice to accept decisions of the Remuneration Tribunal with respect to those matters it determines. We believe that the Government should have a similar view. We believe that the Tribunal’s determinations should not be subject to review by the Parliament wherever possible, even though the legislation at the moment provides that the Parliament has the right to set aside those decisions, having regard to the due processes set out in the original legislation. In fact, I think the ideal situation, which this Government ought to consider, would be a situation in which the tribunals were completely independent from the veto power of the Executive Government as well as the Parliament. They could establish the same principles with respect to payment of salaries and allowances to members of parliament and the judiciary as are expected to be exercised by the Conciliation and Arbitration

Commission when sitting, as it does, on the national wage cases.

We want to discuss a number of matters at the Committee stage because we find it somewhat difficult to understand what is suggested in this legislation with respect to matters affecting some of the judges in the High Court. We will leave it to the Committee stage of the debate to raise that issue. In substance we believe that the Tribunal, having been appointed, having been delegated a responsibility, should not have the decisions which it finally makes set aside because of a capricious act of the Executive or the Parliament. I agree that it probably is unlikely that the Parliament would set aside any of the decisions made by the Tribunal because the Tribunal normally increases salaries and allowances. The likelihood of that being varied by the Parliament is probably very remote. But we have had an instance of the Government, for its own philosophical and ideological reasons, deciding to stay those decisions. The Opposition finds itself in direct conflict with the actions of the Government taken at that level. Overall, the Opposition does not oppose the Bills. We want to raise a couple of minor matters during the Committee stage of the debate.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– Mr President, I am not listed to speak on these Bills. It is not my intention to do so, except to seek leave of the Senate to have incporporated in Hansard certain pages of the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows -

Travelling allowance payable to the Chief Justice and Justices of the High Court 13a. (1) In this section, “judicial office to which this section applies, means the office of Chief Justice of the High Court or an office of Justice of the High Court.

For the purposes of this section -

the Australian Capital Territory shall be deemed to constitute a single locality;

each capital city of a State shall be deemed to constitute a single locality; and

each other city or town shall be deemed to constitute a single locality.

There is payable to a person who holds a judicial office to which this section applies an allowance ascertained in accordance with sub-section (4) in respect of his expenses of travel within Australia and the external Territories -

if the sole or principal place of residence of the person is at a place in the Australian Capital Territory - in connection with the performance of his duties otherwise than in the Australian Capital Territory; or

in any other case - in connection with the performance of his duties otherwise than in -

the Austraiian Capital Territory; and

the locality in which his sole or principal place of residence is situated.

The allowance in respect of the expenses of travel payable under sub-section (3) to a person who holds a judicial office to which this section applies is -

if the travel involves an absence from his sole or principal place of residence and from the Australian Capital Territory that includes an overnight stay or overnight stays -

in a case to which sub-paragraph (ii) does not apply - $80 per overnight stay; or

if the number of hours of the absence is not less than the number ascertained in accordance with the formula 24* + 10, where x is the number of overnight stays included in the absence - the sum of the amount that would be ascertained under sub-paragraph (i) if that sub-paragraph were applicable and $20; or

if the travel involves an absence from his sole or principal place of residence and from the Australian Capital Territory of nol less than 10 hours but does nol include an overnight stay- $20.

There is payable to a person (other than a person to whom an allowance is payable by virtue of section 13b)-

who holds a judicial office to which this section applies by virtue of an appointment made after 1 July 1980; and

whose sole or principal place of residence at the time (in this sub-section referred to as the “relevant time”) when that appointment took effect was al a place outside, but nol in a part of New South Wales thai is adjacent to or in the vicinity of, the Australian Capital Territory, an allowance ascertained in accordance with sub-section (6) in respect of his expenses of travel in connection with the performance of his duties in the Australian Capital Territory, being travel-

if the person establishes his sole or principal place of residence al a place in, or in a part of New South Wales that is adjacent to or in the vicinity of, the Australian Capital Territory before the expiration of 3 months after the relevant time - before the time when he establishes his sole or principal place of residence at such a place; or

in a case to which paragraph (c) does not apply - before the expiration of 3 months after the relevant time.

The allowance in respect of the expenses of travel payable under sub-section (5) to a person who holds a judicial office to which this section applies is -

if the travel involves an absence from his sole or principal place of residence that includes an overnight stay or overnight stays -

in a case to which sub-paragraph (ii) does not apply - $80 per overnight stay; or

if the number of hours of the absence is not less than the number ascertained in accordance with the formula 24* + 10, where x is the number of overnight stays included in the absence - the sum of the amount that would be ascertained under sub-paragraph (i) if that sub-paragraph were applicable and $20; or

if the travel involves an absence from his sole or principal place of residence of not less than 10 hours but does not include an overnight stay - $20.

There is payable to a person who holds a judicial office to which this section applies, in respect of travel outside Australia and the external Territories in connection with the performance of his duties, an allowance by way of reimbursement of the reasonable expenses of that travel.

Additional allowance payable to certain Justices of the High Court 1 3b. ( 1 ) There is payable to a person -

who holds a judicial office to which this section applies;

who, on I July 1980, held a judicial office to which this section applies; and

whose sole or principal place of residence is, and was on that date, at a place outside, but not in a part of New South Wales that is adjacent to or in the vicinity of, the Australian Capital Territory, an allowance, on account of expenses that will be incurred by him by reason that his sole or principal place of residence is at a place outside, and not in a part of New South Wales that is adjacent to or in the vicinity of, the Australian Capital Territory, at the rate of $7,500 per annum.

In this section, “judicial office to which this section applies” has the same meaning as in section 1 3a.

Schedule 3

Schedule 3 to the Principal Act is repealed and the following Schedule substituted:

Senator PETER BAUME:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - I understand that there is general support for these Bills. I understand also that honourable senators have some questions to put at the Committee stage. I thank them for their support in the second reading debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Opposition is somewhat unclear on some aspects. Can the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Peter Baume) inform us of the position in respect of judges in the Federal jurisdiction? What is in the Government’s mind? What is envisaged in this legislation? What will be the position of a judge of the Federal Court of Australia or the High Court of Australia who is invited to visit a university in a far-flung State of Australia, for example, in Perth? Is any restriction likely to be placed upon his capacity to receive a travelling allowance and daily allowance with respect to such a commitment? I think it has to be understood that judges in these jurisdictions often have to determine cases of considerable public interest. I am led to believe that, once the decision is reached, they are often asked to give lectures or talks of a legal nature or, for that matter, even of a political nature - as distinct from a party political nature - to lawyers or to students at universities. Because I cannot quite comprehend what the legislation means in this respect, could the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Peter Baume) indicate whether they would then qualify for a daily allowance in the same way as Ministers of the Crown or members of the shadow Ministry, subject to the limitations that are imposed upon a certain number of visits by shadow Ministers, are entitled?

Senator PETER BAUME:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · New South Wales · LP

– I am advised that travelling allowance is payable when travel by a justice is part of his duties or is as a consequence of his duties as a judge. If it is not in the course of his duties, for example, if a judge is the chancellor of a university, he would carry that expense himself. To that extent I understand that the same kind of situation would apply as applies for most people drawing a travelling allowance - it has to be related to the duties they carry out. I think on that basis the question of party political activities under that advice, would not attract a travelling allowance.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I wish to ask a further question on the same subject. If a judge were invited to make an address to a legal convention - for example, Sir Garfield Barwick at successive meetings of the Legal Convention - or in the kind of context that Senator Gietzelt put by virtue of his status and position as a judge of the High Court rather than in the context which Senator Baume mentioned of his occupying some independent office to which he may have been appointed just by virtue of his general stature in the community, would that not be a case of the judge’s travelling ‘in connection with the performance of his duties’ within the meaning of proposed new section 1 3A of the Bill?

Senator PETER BAUME:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · New South Wales · LP

– I am advised that that kind of situation would be covered and that it would attract a travelling allowance.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 406

MINISTERS OF STATE AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 406

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT (WESTERN SAMOA) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– The Judical Appointment (Western Samoa) Bill, which is a purely formal machinery matter, is to facilitate the appointment for two years of Mr Justice St John as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Western Samoa on loan, as it were, from the Federal Court of Australia. The Bill is a welcome exercise in co-operation with a South Pacific neighbour of growing importance. The Opposition supports it and wishes it a speedy passage.

Senator PETER BAUME:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · New South Wales · LP

– I thank Senator Evans and the Senate generally for the comments and for support of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 407

PUBLIC SERVICE AND STATUTORY AUTHORITIES BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator MacGIBBON:
Queensland

– I am pleased to support the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Bill which has been made necessary by the changing circumstances within Australia. The ambit of the Bill applies to Commonwealth public servants and to those working for statutory authorities, for example, the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Australia Post, Telecom Australia, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Commonwealth Teaching Service -

Senator Knight:

– Mr President, we were going to proceed with the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Amendment Bill at this point. I am sorry; I think it was overlooked.

Senator Peter Baume:

– If that is the intention of the Senate, and if the honourable senator who was speaking would agree, the Government would have no objection to taking it in that order.

Senator Robertson:

– You are being magnaminous - it was your mistake not ours.

Senator Peter Baume:

– We freely acknowledge that, but an honourable senator had the call.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Bill will be called on.

page 407

AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVE-STOCK CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I will be almost as brief in speaking to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill as Senator Evans was on the one that preceded it. The Bill increases the membership of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation from nine to eleven and makes a number of other changes, a couple of which could be of some importance and to which I will refer at somewhat greater length. It is not being opposed by the Opposition. We observe that, although the Bill has been floating around the Parliament since the beginning of the Budget Session in August, the Government has bungled the new appointments - in conjunction with its bungling of the parliamentary proceedings, the most recent manifestation of which we have just seen - and that the first meeting of the Corporation will be held without the full membership’s being present.

The couple of other conditions to which I referred earlier are the clarification in the Bill of the Corporation’s control over the export of meat and livestock through the issue of export licences and the putting beyond doubt of the Corporation’s power to regulate exports. I want to make two points arising from that. When a corporation of this type is given regulatory powers there can be both positive and negative spin-offs. Although I make no final judgment on the matter, I have some reservations whether the Corporation’s use of its pre-existing power in respect of regulating shipping from Australia has been entirely in the best interests of the Australian meat industry. Arbitrary decisions are made under which some carriers are prevented from carrying frozen or chilled meat from the country. I will not go into great detail but the nature of the case is such that it does not seem to me to be possible that convincing objective proof can be produced to show whether keeping what one might call opportunity traders out of the carrying business in order that the entire market may be preserved for regular lines is in the best interests of the meat industry. I have heard arguments from both sides and I am not entirely convinced by the argument put to me a couple of months ago by the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation.

Another point concerns the Corporation’s powers to regulate exports. It seems a matter of common sense in times of severe oversupply such as the beef industry experienced between late 1974 and mid- 1978 that it is crass to have a number of Australian exporters competing with each other on an oversupplied market to supply organised buyers at the other end, particularly the Livestock Industry Promotion Corporation in Japan, the European Economic Community and some other markets. One of the propositions which was put by the Labor Party in its agricultural policy prior to the last election was that a study should be commissioned, possibly by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, although we were open to persuasion on that if we could be convinced that there was a more appropriate institution to conduct the study, the purpose of the study being to attempt to quantify the losses which accrued to Australian exporters and ultimately to Australian cattle producers by this price competition by a substantial number of Australian exports when facing a very limited number of organised buyers in oversupplied markets. We did not get the opportunity to implement that policy, which is a pity for the cattle industry. However, 1 express the hope that at some time in the future this Government will be persuaded to set up such a study with a view to quantifying what the losses are - common sense tells us that there must be losses - and, if those losses can be successfully quantified, obviously, action ought to be taken by the AMLC in order to exercise some discipline over the prices at which exports are made, at least in periods of oversupply. The Labor Party will not oppose the Bill.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– I wish to speak only very briefly on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill. 1 support the legislation. I think it is appropriate at this stage that we look back to the 1977 position when the legislation first came before the chamber. Much has changed in the beef cattle industry since then and I believe that this does great credit to the Corporation and to, the industry itself. In particular, 1 think it is appropriate at this time to make special mention of the work that Baden Cameron did for the Australian National Cattlemen’s Council. During the time that we were battling to introduce the original legislation I had a lot to do with the then Senator Wriedt and his lieutenant. We were able to negotiate many points. As a result of many of the discussions that we had with Baden Cameron we were able to make proper assessments of the real desire of the industry and to carry the matter on from there. From that point I was very pleased to be able to talk at any time to Baden Cameron to find out what the industry was really thinking. 1 congratulate him considerably on the manner in which he conducted himself as Executive Secretary of the

Council. He did so without political flavour of any description. He carried matters through very adequately and conscientiously. At all times he represented the views that were best. I suggest that the views that he portrayed could well have been carried forward by other people in similar positions to his in his own organisation or in the fringe organisations attached thereto.

I believe that the provisions that we are now discussing are really only an extension of the ones that the then Senator Wriedt and I discussed at the time of the original legislation. I am very pleased to see the way that those provisions have been carried through. The industry has accepted the position with the best will in the world. I am pleased that the economics of the industry have improved as much as they have since that lime. I now look forward to what will happen in the few years ahead. The need to get a carcass classification scheme fully under way in Australia is paramount. I ask all the producer groups and the manufacturing groups to get behind it totally and to press everybody they can to see that it is carried right through.

There has been a considerable amount of publicity in recent times concerning the type of livestock in Australia, comparing it to that in North America. I was fortunate enough to be able to talk to many people in North America a few months ago when I was on a visit there. I spoke with cattlemen in Colorado, Missouri and in Alberta, Canada. I was very pleased to see what they were doing, what they were hoping to do and the type of research on which they were working. There is no doubt that Canada has the better cattle of the world. I suggest that we look at the taller, longer, leaner cattle such as the Canadians are now producing as a means of getting the highest possible return for the farmer in the best possible time.

The really important thing in cattle production is the number of kilograms of beef produced per hectare per year. We have to spend more time, more money and more effort on production. We have to spend more money on assessing our feed requirements. We have to spend more time on looking at the various types of breeds and cross breeds that will improve production. I was interested to read an article recently which referred to Professor Des Dowling of the Animal Production Department of the University of Queensland. He made the following comment:

You have only to visit any of the artificial breeding centres to see how prosperous they are, because they have the bulls that will give the results leading breeders are already getting in Australia.

My concern is for the producer, irrespective of breed, who makes his own decisions and has to be able to produce more efficient, safer cattle for greater profits and consequent satisfaction for the local and global consumer.

That is what we have to consider. I produce a few cattle. I am very pleased to be able to try some of the experimentation that has been recommended in other parts of the world. I believe we are too tied to existing breeds and that we have too much tradition to make some of the progress that is absolutely necessary. I have been in communication within the last year with Richard Wilson of the Banana Station in Queensland who has done a tremendous amount of work towards the production of cross-breed cattle to suit his own area.

I happen to live in Tasmania where, of course, the growing conditions for cattle probably are superior to those anywhere else in Australia, but the cattle produced are not necessarily appropriate for the conditions prevailing everywhere else in Australia. But what we can produce in Tasmania certainly is appropriate for a very large area. We can produce cattle better, cheaper and more expeditiously than can be produced in many parts of the country. However, in the more northern areas of Australia we have entirely different conditions. This, I believe, is where the greater proportion of the research has to take place. I believe the cattle industry, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Queensland Government and such other institutions have to produce programs of experimentation to see how we can achieve a higher proportion of better cattle each year in the more northern areas. I am very pleased to see the changes that are proposed to the Act. I certainly approve of the increase in the membership of the Corporation, as well as the other amendments contained in the Bill. I support the legislation.

Senator PETER BAUME:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · New South Wales · LP

– I thank honourable senators for their expressions of support for this legislation. In the second reading debate a couple of matters were raised to which I wish to respond. Senator Walsh expressed his concern at the delay in appointing all the producer members, and he used the word ‘bungling’. I think, in fairness, it is not a matter of bungling at all; the appointment of some of these members has been deferred to allow the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) to seek a better representation from all the States. Two positions of producer member fell vacant on 30 November or 1 December, and the Minister has requested the Producer Consultative Group to submit an expanded panel of names to him. He wants this list to include nominees for the additional position which will be created by the amending Bill we are considering tonight. In view of the imminence of the passage of this legislation, it really does seem that the Minister’s course of action of holding back these producer appointments makes a lot of sense, rather than proceeding to fill two of the positions at one time and then later having to fill the other position. The Bill was listed originally during the last session of Parliament. Of course, at that stage, a different number of vacancies was required to be filled.

I refer to a couple of matters raised by my colleague, Senator Archer, who is a significant breeder of fine limousin cattle down at Boat Harbour. I endorse his remarks about the need for close co-operation between government and industry. The points he made are noted and endorsed. But he said something else with which the Government would like to be associated. He made remarks particularly about the work done by Baden Cameron, the former Executive Officer of the Australian National Cattlemen’s Council. I think those remarks were most appropriate and very generous, and I am sure they will be well received by all people in the industry.

He made one other comment to which we might respond, and that concerned the progress that may have been made towards reaching some kind of finality on the question of carcass classification. I draw the honourable senator’s attention to some comments made last night in another place by Mr Peter Nixon in which he drew attention to the annual report of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation which was tabled only yesterday in the Parliament. In that report, the Chairman, Mr Jones, pointed out that at this moment draft tenders have been lodged with the Department of Administrative Services, and once the process has been gone through tenders will be called for the supply and the installation of trial semi-automated equipment at two abattoirs. It can be seen that there is some progress now toward the final stages of the process which Senator Archer identified as being desirable. Having said that, I thank the Senate for its support of this Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I have several questions I wish to ask in relation to clause 7 of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Amendment Bill, which deals with the membership of the Corporation. I know that my colleague, Senator Walsh, raised this matter, but I am concerned about the answer given by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Peter Baume). He said one of the reasons these new appointments have not been made is that the membership has been increased from four to five. I understood the Minister to say that the other reason is that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) is not satisfied with the quality of the nominations that he received. If I understood the Minister correctly, I am astounded at that statement because I have always had great faith in Mr John Kerin from South Australia as a member of this Corporation.

The Minister for Primary Industry has been prepared to extend his term of office beyond 30 November until he gets a new nomination, so I cannot understand the Minister’s reply that Mr Nixon was not satisfied with the quality of the nominations received. I cannot speak for the quality of the other producer members but I think I can speak for the quality of Mr Kerin. For a very long time I have known him to be a member who is dedicated to his job, whatever it may be. I knew Mr Kerin in the old days when he happened to be the President of the United Farmers and Graziers Association. I have always had a lot of respect for him. I would like the Minister to tell me whether Mr Kerin is one of these people whom Mr Nixon does not think is of sufficient quality.

I now move from the producer members. I notice also that the position of the Chairman, Mr Jones, expired on 30 November, as did that of Mr McFarlane, the export representative. The term of office of the Commonwealth Government representative, Mr McKay, expired on 30 November, as did the term of Mr J. K. Horwood, who is a member with special qualifications. When this report was tabled today I said that it listed the members of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation only as at 30 June last year. I made the plea then that if a change of personnel takes place between the report being printed and presented, it ought to contain a flyleaf so that members of parliament can be brought up to date as to the membership, whether it be of a board or of a corporation, which is responsible to report to the Parliament. I hope now that the Minister has an officer from the Corporation in the chamber to assist him that request will be taken oh board. I await an answer from the Minister to the questions I have posed to him.

Senator PETER BAUME:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · New South Wales · LP

– Senator McLaren raised two points. The question of listing extra personnel in interim reports or in annual reports is a matter which we can refer to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) for his consideration. If I take Senator McLaren’s point correctly, when Senate committees bring down reports we sometimes show members and former members in the front of those reports. I will pass that matter on. Senator McLaren made some comments about the potential membership of the Corporation and he made a particular reference to Mr Kerin of South Australia. Let me assure him that we would want to endorse his comments in support of Mr Kerin. The matter is not in any way a question of the quality of the nominees. No question of quality has been raised. As honourable senators know, the Minister is required under section 19 of the principal Act to make his appointments from among persons whose names are included in a list of names submitted to him by the Producer Consultative Group. The Minister has to fill an extra position created by this amending legislation. That is the first point. Secondly, he wanted to get an adequate geographical spread to cover the areas where production occurs. All that he has done is set out in his Press release of 28 November, which reads:

The Minister had requested the Producer Consultative Group to submit an expanded panel of names. This was to include nominees for an additional position which would be created by an amendment Bill presently before the Parliament. This would enable appointments to all three positions to be considered at the one time.

There has been no question of any dissatisfaction with the quality of members or the quality of nominations received. I hope that that clarifies the point which Senator McLaren has raised.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Minister has clarified the situation to an extent. I just further my plea that due consideration be given to South Australia concerning this extra position on the Board of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. I hope that South Australia does not miss out as it has done in relation to the Apple and Pear Corporation, on the Board of which neither South Australia nor Queensland has a representative. I hope that Mr Kerin, if he is nominated by his fellows in South Australia, is given every consideration. I hope that he will continue as a member of the Board to serve in the most efficient way, as he has in the past.

Senator PETER BAUME:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · New South Wales · LP

– I am advised that the Government is mindful of that very point.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 411

PUBLIC SERVICE AND STATUTORY AUTHORITIES BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator MacGIBBON:
Queensland

– 1 rise to speak on this Bill for the second time within 15 minutes.

Senator Ryan:

– My God! That’s excessive.

Senator MacGIBBON:

– Since Senator Ryan was not here the first time I will go through the introduction again. I was not going to do that. It gives me great pleasure to be able to support this Bill, lt has been made necessary by the changing circumstances in Australia. The ambit of this Bill covers Commonwealth public servants and those working for statutory authorities such as the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Australia Post, Telecom Australia, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Commonwealth Teaching Service and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. The purpose of the Bill is to make statutory provision for the no work as directed-no pay principle. It removes the legal uncertainties that have arisen as a result of Bennett’s case, which in simple terms related to the fact that the interpretation of the Public Service Act was deemed not to apply to the conditions I have mentioned - people not working and the Government not being able to withhold their pay.

This Bill restores the common law principle; that is, where an employee does not fulfil his or her obligations, the employer is not obliged to pay wages. It is an eminently reasonable proposition. The public should not be forced to bear the cost of employing people who are not prepared to provide the public services for which they are engaged. The move has been forced upon the Government, which has been reluctant to take it. lt really has no option but to go ahead with the legislation under the circumstances. Every member of this Parliament, whether Liberal or Labor, is responsible and accountable for the expenditure of public funds. It is not government money; it is money raised by taxation. The fundamental proposition of this Bill in one sense is financial integrity. We cannot pay money for goods and services that are not received. That would be a fraudulent action.

Australia is now faced with a changing industrial situation. Once unionists used to strike only in pursuit of their demands. It is to be regretted that they still have that habit, but they strike with great frequency. If we look at the strike chart we see that Australia is right at the top of the league. Not only is strike action being taken in its absolution in Australia, but also work bans and limitations are now being used in support of strike action. It is euphemistically called selective industrial action. I wonder whether the unionists lack the courage to say that they are on strike. This business of selective strike action, which has been evident in the Public Service in the last year - the staff of various departments have refused to do certain things that they are required to do for Ministers and for parliamentarians - is really intolerable. One is either on strike or not on strike. I suppose that one of the factors that has led to this is the soft option approach that has probably been forced on some union organisers. Perhaps some of the union members would not go on strike if they were told that what they were proposing to do - that is, take limited or selective industrial action - really was a strike. The euphemism probably has some use in getting the support of unionists, particularly when it is drummed up with a few imagined grievances by the professional organisers in the unions.

The Government really needs to look to the future and to go a little further. I think we are moving to a time when we have to remove from unions the monopoly powers over the supply of labour. Society demanded, and this Parliament has instituted, very stringent restraints on capital and employers in the Australian community, as indeed has been the case in the United States of America and in other Western democracies. The days of nineteenth century capitalists have died. They have gone. We do not allow people with a great deal of money to rule the rest of the community and put it in a feudal serfdom situation. If we accept the logic of that claim, it is only fair that we look at the other section of the community, the work force, which frequently holds the country to ransom. It is only fair that the same monopolies and trade practices legislation that applies to the employers and the people who have capital - the business community in this country - and the same restrictions on their otherwise unbridled power, should also apply to unions. As an old trade unionist I will argue wholeheartedly–

Senator Ryan:

– Who is a trade unionist? Which union?

Senator MacGIBBON:

– I will say that again. As an old trade unionist - some of the academic, theoretical Laborites on the Opposition side have never held a union ticket - I wholeheartedly uphold the right of unionists to strike, or to withhold their labour or whatever euphemism they like to use to describe it. But we must recognise the corollary that if they are to have the right to strike they cannot have a monopoly on the supply of labour. We must recognise that if other members of the community wish to perform the services that a striking unionist has declined to provide–

Senator Ryan:

– They are called scabs.

Senator MacGIBBON:

– The other members of the community who want to work have the right and the entitlement to do those jobs without having to face picket lines or being bullied - or called scabs, as the gentle Senator Ryan is screaming at me across the chamber - by the bullies of the union movement. What is sauce for the goose happens to be sauce for the gander.

Let me return to the Bill. It is a Bill which the Australian Labor Party supports wholeheartedly in private. It recognises full well the dangers of an uncontrolled Public Service holding it to ransom. The honest members of the Labor Party have a few bitter memories of what happened to them at the hands of the Public Service between 1 972 and 1975. But, of course, tonight they must formally disagree, like Pavlovian dogs, barking away because they are beholden to supporting the union movement in public. If we look at the formal Labor argument which has come out of this debate - I had the pleasure of being present in the House of Representatives when the debate was going on last week and I have read Hansard on it- we can say with some conviction that the whole of the argument against it was put forward by the Opposition shadow Minister for Industrial Relations, the new member for Wills, Mr Hawke.

When one strips the argument of Mr Hawke of its hysteria and histrionics he had only two points to make. Still, that is two points more than Senator Button made the other night. I must say that I have never heard Senator Button speak so badly. He really did not have his heart in it. The first point that was made in a most tedious and aggressive way by the honourable member for Wills was a repetition of the Bennett case. He went over and over again the business of proving that under the present legislation it is not possible to withhold payment for striking public servants. He totally missed the point of the Bill. We know that. That is why we are bringing in the Bill. It is our duty as a Parliament to bring in legislation which is of value to the community. This Bill intends to provide under common law for the right that has been denied us by the inadequacies of the Public Service Act.

The second point made by the honourable member for Wills was that in his opinion the Bill would allow people to be penalised for frivolous or malicious reasons and would deny them the right to arbitration. Senator Button came up with a fanciful fiction about somebody taking a parcel across town on a five-minute delivery, breaking speed limits and all that sort of nonsense. Quite simply that argument is so spurious that it is not worth talking about here. The matter was dealt with very effectively in the House of Representatives Hansard of 27 November, for those who are interested enough to read it. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) utterly destroyed that argument. In conclusion 1 say that this is a very moderate, eminently reasonable and necessary Bill for the benefit of all Australians. I wish it a speedy passage through the House.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– I wish to quote some remarks made by a very eminent Australian. On 1 8 July of this year he stated:

We also see governments imposing political solutions on what are essentially industrial problems without any consideration given to the wishes of the direct parties to these problems.

A few weeks later, on 1 1 August, he stated: . . the government should immediately abandon its policy of responding to almost every major industrial situation with threats of new legislation.

Yet here in the very first days of sitting of the new Parliament we see the Government immediately introduce into this chamber legislation of a highly political character in the field of industrial relations.

Senator Chipp:

– Who said that?

Senator TATE:

– 1 now reveal the name of the person who made those remarks. It was Mr Polites, the Director-General of the National Employers Industrial Secretariat.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Employers, not employees.

Senator TATE:

– He is the employers’ representative. He holds in his hands the case and the destiny of some 40,000 companies and organisations which traverse the whole industrial and trading commercial life of this country. Mr Polites is a man of integrity and a man whose experience and judgment are respected, I think, by all sides in the nation. He made the remark that what we do not want from this present coalition Government is a continuation of its policy of the last five years, namely, the continual introduction of highly political legislation which is never put to the test, because the legislation is never actually applied. It is an attempt to pacify industrial disputes by means of antagonistic, confrontationist and divisive legislation. One would have thought that by now and with the advice of such an eminent person as Mr

Polites, the Government would have got the message that this Parliament and the general public are sick and tired of the constant stream of work from the Parliamentary Draftsman, which is simply undermining the conciliation and arbitration process established by the framers of the Constitution in their wisdom back in 1 900.

What we have here is just a simple further evidencing of the Government’s preoccupation with sanctions and legal devices to achieve a pacification of the work force. In adopting this policy it is abandoning those constitutionally designated processes which the framers of the Constitution in their wisdom devised, namely, conciliation and arbitration. Senator MacGibbon - I will be pointing this out from time to time in my remarks - missed the whole point of the Opposition’s protest at the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Bill 1980. It is not so much that the no work as directed - no pay principle should be opposed as a term of contractual relationship between employers and employees. What we are saying is that that principle, even if it were a valid one, should not be the sole criterion and should not be statutorily imposed so that the will of one party to an industrial dispute becomes by force of statute the dominant and exclusive way that a dispute is to be resolved.

Senator Chipp:

– It is a valid criterion, surely.

Senator TATE:

– That is the point I am making. There may be occasions where the application of that principle is justified. What I am saying and what the Opposition is insisting upon is that that principle be taken into account by the conciliation and arbitration process. In other words, it should be one option open to the conciliation and arbitration process when it comes to settling a dispute. We are saying that there is no evidence that this legislation, in preventing the conciliation and arbitration process from using that principle, will be doing anything to ameliorate, modify or solve industrial disputes. In fact we believe it will exacerbate disputes, create further tension and further deepen what could have been a minor industrial dispute into a major industrial confrontation. As the Victorian Government has reminded the Federal Government in very recent days, when the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Peacock, attacked the Victorian Government for the eventual terms of settlement over the Loy Yang dispute, the State Treasurer, Mr Thompson - he is also the Deputy Premier of Victoria - reacted very angrily to claims by the Federal Government that the Victorian Government was acting in a totally improper manner in coming to those terms. As the Victorian Government stated, whilst it may be that in settling the dispute an arrangement had to be made concerning the pay of the men who were on strike for some time, how else was the dispute to be solved? It was part of the package settlement.

What the Opposition is insisting upon is that that flexibility, that experience which involves all those in the conciliation and arbitration process in this country, be available to solve disputes rather than to harden and exacerbate the situation. What this Government is doing in a very cynical way, in following and hoping to court the favour of the editorial writers in the Australian and so on, is to take advantage of some hostility towards the Public Service which is being whipped up in this country. The Government is intent, it seems, to deprive public servants of some of the ordinary rights which obtain in an employee-employer relationship, namely, access to the conciliation and arbitration process. One would think that the Government had a sufficient panoply of powers. While I have been a member of the Senate - only a few years - the Commonwealth has brought in two or three pieces of legislation designed to give it power to stand down, suspend or even dismiss without appeal its own employees. One would have thought that went far enough, but we have a situation in which the Government insists on the further power of by-passing the conciliation and arbitration processes so that it can impose this principle come what may.

Senator Chipp:

– Can I ask, come what may, a question on proposed section 32a which says that the Board may declare that the officer or employee is not to be paid salary? It is not mandatory. Would you like to speak to that? I would be interested.

Senator TATE:

– Senator Chipp raises a point which at first sight may seem somewhat technical, namely that the Board may declare rather than shall declare, which is the traditional language used to distinguish a discretion from a mandatory situation. It is true that what this means is that the Board or its designated officer - this is the point that I think ought to be emphasised - decides whether it is likely that a discretion will be capriciously or vindictively exercised. One should not be bemused by the words ‘the Board’ which conjures up visions of men of high integrity and of long experience. Of course, the discretion will be exercised by officers at a much lower level - the immediate superior of the person involved. The question is whether the discretion vested in that person may be capriciously or vindictively exercised. I believe that whilst it is true that it does not have to be exercised - there is no mandatory requirement that it be exercised - that discretion could be exercised by any one of a number of hundreds if not thousands of officers who are superior to others within the Public Service. The danger is that that discretion is untrammelled, there are no fetters on it, there are no qualifying words. The fact is that whilst a very vindictive abuse of powers, an exercise of power in bad faith, may enable the victim to go to court and claim that the officer or the Board acted far outside the proper realm of the discretion, I think this would involve only a mere handful of cases. It would involve very vindictive action which clearly takes the discretion outside the realm of the legislation. In most instances the discretion will be exercised within the parameters of the legislation and that is a fact with which the Opposition is concerned. I hope that those few remarks, off the cuff as they are, satisfy Senator Chipp on that point.

One can always be legitimately suspicious of this Government when, as in this case, it comes before us with legislation on which there has been very inadequate or even no consultation with the National Labour Consultative Council, and apparently that is the fact. When one reflects on that fact one is reminded of the remarks of Mr Polites and. one has to say that we are thereby warned that this legislation, which has not been adequately discussed by the NLCC, is no more than part of the propaganda effort of this Government in manipulating and using the Parliament to further its political purpose within the wider community. It is a political exercise in its basest sense. I do not believe that in this legislation the Government is trying to achieve a result conducive to industrial harmony.

Senator MacGibbon reiterated the principle which was relied on by the Minister, namely that the no work as directed - no pay principle should apply, in other words, to revive a principle which is said to have been part of the common law. Even if that is so let us not forget that that is a system of law in the industrial sphere designed in the eighteenth or nineteenth century, created by the benches of non-elected judges then to aid the pacification of the most brutal industrialisation of the members of the English work force as they were drawn from their villages and agricultural pursuits into the smokestacks of the industrial revolution.

Senator MacGibbon:

– Come on.

Senator TATE:

– This is the fact, Senator. You may be an expert on dentistry, but I know something about the history of the common law. In fact, the law was the aider and abetter of the industrialists of England. That principle, if it existed, was part of that aiding and abetting by the privileged elite on the benches for the privileged elite in the growing mercantile power of the United Kingdom. We are simply saying that whether that principle is part of common law and may have an application in some instances - Senator Chipp may be correct - ought to be decided within the confines of the usual conciliation and arbitration processes. In other words, why bypass a system deliberately created because of the inadequacies of the common law, because of the realisation over the years by the framers of our Constitution and by leaders of industry, commerce and the unions that what is needed to solve industrial disputes is conciliation where possible and, in the end, the imposition of a determination by persons experienced in industrial relations. I am saying that Senator MacGibbon and the Minister are putting forward a principle which states merely the contractual relationship between employers and employees and then on that basis make a political attack on the trade unions. It is not putting forward, as a government confronted with an industrial dispute situation ought to be doing, legislation in the industrial relations context which has been proved to be successful within this country since the framers of the Constitution created it for us.

A proposal put forward by Senator Mason has been circulated. He proposes that before the word direction’ in proposed section 32A (1) the word reasonable’ ought to be inserted. On behalf of the Opposition I have to say that we certainly do not oppose the spirit of this amendment, which is designed to ameliorate the bold, the harsh and the ill-tempered framing of this provision. This express wording in the Bill is sought to be ameliorated or modified by the Australian Democrats proposal to put in front of the word ‘direction’ the word ‘reasonable’. The view of the Opposition insofar as I have been able to talk to some of my colleagues - this is a difficulty that we have - is that the whole tenor of the legislation is totally misguided in its excluding of the ordinary conciliation and arbitration principles, and must be rejected rather than softened or modified in one aspect.

Senator Chipp:

– But you are not going to defeat the Bill.

Senator TATE:

– Can you tell me, Senator Mason, whether the Government has indicated agreement with your amendment?

Senator Mason:

– It hasn’t, I understand.

Senator TATE:

– In that case, given the hard, unmovable stand by the Government in this way where it does not even want the word ‘reasonable’ inserted, 1 believe we ought to vote - in a dramatic or theatrical way if you like - in a very real way against the Bill as intended and proposed by the Government. Let us oppose it with all our vigour. It is a black and white situation which I regret very much, but black and white situations come about when a Bill is introduced as a propaganda exercise, as a divisive confrontationist exercise, instead of what Mr Polites pointed out ought to be the case. The chief vice, which would still remain even if Senator Mason’s amendment to incorporate the word ‘reasonable’ were accepted, is that no appeal is possible to the conciliation and arbitration processes of this country. For that reason we prefer to be seen as clearly rejecting the harsh intentions of the Government in this matter. It is a matter of regret that the amendment which Senator Mason intends to move did not come to us in sufficient time to enable me to consult fully with members of the parliamentary party. That is one of the reasons I am under difficulty in pledging our support for the amendment. Nevertheless, I feel that I have explained what we will do and our reasons for doing it.

I hope that the indication I have already had by way of interjection from the Australian Democrats puts the Government on some notice. Certainly after 1 July there will be an attempt by all members on this side of the chamber to bring to industrial relations in this country, insofar as legislation is required or insofar as parliamentary discussion would be beneficial and not merely exacerbate a dispute, a note not of compromise or of weakness but of that spirit of conciliation and discussion which is so much needed at the moment.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– My firm belief is that any industrial legislation which is brought before the national Parliament should create the machinery and atmosphere which strengthen the hands of those who seek to achieve orderly industrial progress. In my view, after full and lengthy consideration of this legislation, it does not meet that criterion. To a certain extent I can understand the Government’s frustration with some of the nit-picking industrial disputation in the Public Service area over the last six or eight months, and its concern as to how the Bennett’s case went. Nonetheless, I believe that this legislation would have the effect of transferring responsibility for that industrial disputation from the unions, where it properly rests, to the individual union member. In other words, the effect of this legislation would be to make the individual union member the ham in the sandwich. It would also escalate minor disputes into major confrontation.

In my view the Government is playing into the hands of the extreme elements in certain trade unions by introducing unnecessary, unfair legislation which denies due process and right of appeal. The moderates - those who seek to achieve orderly industrial progress - have no alternative but to support the Opposition and the likely industrial action against the provisions of this legislation. Therefore, the whole rationale of the Government behind this legislation will fall. I therefore appeal to the Government to reconsider its attitude to this legislation.

I do not propose at this hour of night, because I know that other honourable senators are limiting themselves to a speaking time of 10 minutes, to go over all of those points that were raised in the House of Representatives by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke) or in this House by Senator Tate or anybody else. Suffice it to say that the Government’s record needs some examination. Let us look at what the Government has done. Here again we see the Government using a legalistic means to give an appearance of coming to grips with an industrial issue. For example the CERR Act - the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act - which I think this Government introduced last year with a great fanfare has not yet been proclaimed and there is no sign that the Government intends to act in the near future. In fact, it may never be proclaimed, according to the previous Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street, if the Government is not happy with the determination which is eventually handed down. Thousands of public servants who would be prepared to retire on reduced pensions and give way to others, thus creating more vacancies, are still waiting. The CEEP Act - the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act - gives the Minister power to stand down and dismiss employees. That Act allows the Government to bypass the due process of the arbitration system. The spirit of that system is imbued very solidly into the minds and hearts of Australians. As I have said before in this chamber the last time the system of conciliation and arbitration was put to the people was in 1929 when the then conservative government went to the people to destroy arbitration and was itself destroyed. The people of Australia have an inherent belief in the fairness of the umpire’s decision. Obviously, those of us who are practised in the industrial sphere and who have been involved in it for many years know that there are good and bad decisions. Nevertheless, the umpire’s decision is generally accepted within the community. Indeed, the Prime Minister, quite rightly, has often spoken about the need to abide by the umpire’s decision.

This legislation attempts to superimpose another set of principles over the principles of conciliation and arbitration, irrespective of the terms of any awards or determinations. It is discriminatory by reason of the fact that the socalled principle of no work as directed - no pay is not operative in the private sector. As I said, another effect of this legislation would be to turn minor disputation into major confrontation and to transfer the responsibility of industrial action determined by the unions from the union to an individual member. Why do I say that?

In the event of industrial disputation the Government already has the right to take the industrial dispute either to the Public Service Arbitrator or to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and to seek any order that it thinks fit. That is where an issue of industrial dispute should be determined. It should not be taken out on the individual member of the organisation. The legislation is transferring from the union its responsibility in matters of industrial dispute. The minute that anyone is taken to task and an ‘authorised direction’ is given - I shall refer to that matter later - of course the minor industrial dispute will escalate to a major conflagration, forcing the moderate sections within the unions concerned into vehement support for another principle. 1 am concerned, as presumably the Government is concerned, about the decline in the Public Service ethos. The decline in the Public Service ethos has its extreme manifestation in the leaking of the Budget documents. I believe that sort of action by public servants, or a public servant, if it was a public servant, deserves to be condemned. The Public Service is there to be the servant of the public. What this legislation does is to affect further the Public Service ethos by pitting one public servant, the officer in charge, against another. I believe that is not in the best interests of the Public Service. , 1 consider that there is much to be done to restore that ethos of the Public Service. I consider that in the last six or eight years much has been done which has tended to politicise certain sections in the Public Service. I shall give the Senate an example of the sickness of this type of politicisation. At the last meeting of the Australian Capital Territory branch of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, a motion was proposed regarding the death of Mr V. C. Gair. It was moved by Mr Kuhn, and was seconded by Mr Wedgwood:

That so much of Standing Orders be suspended to permit Branch Council to have one minute’s silence to celebrate the passing of Vince Gair.

This is a manifestation of the sort of ludicrous situation created by the types of individuals about whom the public is concerned - people who treat the Public Service as a plaything. Of course, that motion was lost.

But more significant factors and forces are involved. The Government, presumably, does not know some of the effects of its previous legislation - legislation which attempted, in its view, to provide more rank and file control. I refer to the legislation which was introduced by the Honourable Clyde Cameron in the Whitlam Government, and followed through by this Government. What is happening in a number of unions now is that when industrial disputes occur a vote is taken. The votes are tallied up right throughout Australia. That vote is then binding on all branches. Previously the branches took their decisions, and those branches had the right to ensure that their decisions were adhered to.

Senator Tate:

– Within their own jurisdiction.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Within their own jurisdiction. But recently in one union, the ACOA, this all changed. Furthermore, there are moves designed to establish across the State borders what we in the outside trade union movement know as shop committee organisations.

The Government’s approach to this situation is to bring in this type of legislation which will further damage the ability of those who see the Public Service as a service to the public to maintain its integrity. It will push these people into a confrontationist situation so that they have no alternative but to join with the extremists in supporting any member who is affected.

Senator Lewis:

– What would you have the Government do?

Senator HARRADINE:

– I certainly would not have the Government do what it has already done; that is, to weaken the influence of the moderate forces in the Public Service unions by refusing to allow Government departments to deduct union dues from members’ salaries. What that has done, of course, is make it easier for those people who do not agree with the direction of people who wish to politicise the Public Service to opt out.

Senator Lewis:

– All you suggest is negative.

Senator HARRADINE:

– That is not a negative suggestion at all. What the Government has done has weakened the moderate forces within the ACOA, for example. Mark my words, we will see that weakening happen. It has been happening since that ruling has been made. The Secretary of the Victorian branch of the ACOA, a recognised moderate trade union official, has been defeated. That is what the Government’s action is doing to one of the biggest branches of the ACOA. That is the type of effect that is occurring.

Senator Lewis:

– Do you have any positive suggestions?

Senator HARRADINE:

– That is what I am saying. My positive suggestion is that the Government cease this sort of window dressing and put the responsibility for industrial action where it belongs - on the union involved or on the decisions which create the industrial disputation. Already the Government has the right to take industrial disputes to the Public Service Arbitrator or to the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal to seek whatever orders it sees fit. It is there that these industrial disputes are determined, not by some ‘authorised direction’ of some official who is then put in direct conflict with another member of the Public Service.

Let us get to that problem. There is a lack of definition of direction. What constitutes direction? Who decides when a public servant had disobeyed or failed to carry out a direction? These are the sorts of questions that are not answered in the legislation before us - the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill. I said previously that I would not hold up the Senate. I believe that a number of questions need to be answered. The Government has chosen to use its Public Service head of power in the Constitution to trample upon the principle of arbitration by superimposing, by this Bill, provisions which are over and above the principle of conciliation and arbitration. I particularly put this to the Attorney-General: I understood that it was the Government’s policy to adhere to the principles of conciliation and arbitration. But unfortunately, through this legislation, this appears not to be so.

I can understand the Government’s frustration at leaked documents. I can understand the concern of the Attorney-General and of the Government over the bags full of documents which must have gone into those foreign affairs papers. Literally bagfulls of material must have been taken. If the Government wants to tighten that up it will have my support. As far as I am concerned, if the documents are properly classified - not everything should be classified; probably there have to be guidelines - that sort of action is not in the best interests of either the Public Service or the country as a whole.

Because of all that I have said, because of the need to have before the Senate positive suggestions of ways in which to overcome the problems that are foreseen by the Government - the Senate does not have time for that at present - I consider it would be very desirable to have the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for consideration. That Committee could call evidence from a number of persons. It would be up to those persons to sit down before the Committee and be on the spot, as it were. It is not possible for us to have the individuals operating in this field before us tonight. But it would be possible for the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee to call those people before it as witnesses and to report to this Parliament. I ask the Minister to give that due consideration. There is no way that there will be mass disputation or problems over the Christmas or New Year period if we do not pass this legislation. I have been in the trade union movement long enough not to call too many blues over Christmas. I suggest to the Government that it ought to take on board the matters that I have raised tonight and give full consideration to the suggestion that the Bill should be referred to the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee after the second reading debate.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– The Australian Democrats find, as is so often the case with this kind of legislation from the Government, that the Bill is too confrontative too aggressive, too legalistic. It seems really calculated not to improve industrial relations in this country at all but rather to exacerbate them; to bring about, in a perverse kind of way, a confrontation with unions; and more seriously, I think, in effect to put a gun in the hands of industrial extremists and to take power away from moderates from whom a reasonable point of view might be expected, particularly in this matter.

Senator Tate mentioned events which will occur after 1 July next year. I will be terribly pleased to have here then Senator-elect John Siddons, who has made a sensible industrial policy work extremely well in his companies and who may have something to say to the Government that is far better than anything I could say when it comes to specifics. I look forward to his coming here and entering into debates on this sort of issue.

Senator Tate:

– His idealism or patriotism.

Senator MASON:

– Yes, that is right - a mixture of idealism and pragmatism. It is not bad; it is much better than legalism and confrontation and going back to the book. In fact, it is the only way human beings ever work together reasonably. This Government never seems to have worked that out, even among its members and senators I might say, from what I hear. The point of the matter is that it is a great pity that this legislation is the way it is or that it has come forward at all. 1 believe that the basic principle of work for pay behind the legislation is widely respected in the community. The community is made up largely of the work force. 1 would have thought that it would be not impossible to resolve this problem in another way.

That brings me to the question that I think really is the crunch one for the Australian Democrats: Is this legislation really necessary? Why are we going to all this trouble and expense and taking the time of this place to bring this forward when it would appear that the Government - I would be glad of the Minister’s comments on this at some stage - has now, in the stand down provisions which already exist, the powers it needs to deal with its stated problems? I think really that is the top and bottom of the matter. This is an unnecessary piece of legislation in an area which already is covered by existing legislation. If we assume that to be so, I think we have to come very close to Senator Harradine’s point, which he mentioned in passing; that the legislation is really just a piece of window dressing designed to show certain people from whom the Government imagines or believes it gets support that the Government will be tough and that it will solve industrial problems and will have the iron hand and not too much of the velvet glove on it. Of course, all that is nonsense. It is not necessary in any case.

Assuming we are to have this legislation, which of course we are because as things are the numbers will ensure the passage of the Bill, I will explain briefly my motivation for desiring to amend the legislation. Senator Tate mentioned this. I think it would be good for honourable senators to have a bit of an idea as to why we thought it would be quite a good idea to alter proposed new section 32a ( 1 ) in clause 1 6 of the Bill, which states:

Where an officer or employee refuses or fails to comply with a direction given by a person having authority to give the direction, being a direction with respect to work that he is performing or is to perform, the Board may declare that the officer or employee is not to be paid salary.

We would like to alter that to read: ‘Where an officer or employer refuses or fails to comply with a reasonable direction’. As we all, as realists, know it is quite possible, even within work duties or any other laid down or prescribed scheme of authority, for intimidation and victimisation to take place. Admittedly it is the Board that will make the declaration that it may or may not do so. But I should imagine the Board will be guided pretty much by what the person in authority says has happened. The person in authority - of course we are talking now of all levels of the pyramid of authority except the most lowly one- will be given more power to be tough, to be hard, to be unfair and to be discriminatory because there is no limitation on the type of direction which he can give other than that it has to be within the strict legalistic scope of his authority. That is always a difficult thing to define in any working relationship; some would say it is an impossible thing to define accurately. Of course, as a result of this provision there will be discrimination - probably petty discrimination - at all levels. It will actually happen. It would seem also that the subordinate in this case has no right of appeal. Under the terms of the legislation he has no way of knowing that this action will be taken against him.

Senator Chipp:

– Or her.

Senator MASON:

– Or her, yes. There is another point at issue which the Minister might like to think about; that this is an area of victimisation and subtle pressure which could be used in all kinds of ways. I challenge the Minister to tell us how he could guarantee that that sort of abuse would not occur. The addition of the word reasonable’ would make the proposed new section less confrontative and would provide a basis for appeal. Earlier one Government senator - I think it might have been Senator MacGibbon, but if it was not I apologise - mentioned that it is reasonable legislation. He used that word.

Senator MacGibbon:

– Eminently reasonable.

Senator MASON:

– In that case why not have the word ‘reasonable’ attached to the direction involved? I give notice that I will move that amendment at the Committee stage.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– The Public Service and Statutory Authorities Bill, which is before us, contains amendments to the Public Service Act to overcome the legal doubt raised by the case of Bennett in the New South Wales Supreme Court, which ruled that there was an exclusive code governing the relationship between the Commonwealth and its officers and that as a result the principle of no work as directed - no pay did not apply to Commonwealth public servants and to employees of statutory authorities. There are six such statutory authorities - the Australian Broadcasting Commission, the Australian Postal Commission, the Australian Telecommunications Commission, the

Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Commonwealth Teaching Service and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission.

All sorts of words have been bandied about here tonight. Senator Tate, who must have been talking with tongue in cheek, called the legislation ill-tempered. Senator Mason called it a victimisation. Members of the other place have called it an extremely radical measure and I think most people have called it an attack on public servants. All this Government is asking is that public servants do the work they are asked to do and get paid for doing so - not do half the work, 75 per cent of the work or 60 per cent of the work and get 50 per cent, 75 per cent or 60 per cent of the pay, but do all the work they are asked to do for all the money they get paid. That seems to me a very reasonable request. It does not seem to me to be ill-tempered of an employer to ask his employee to do something and to get paid for doing it. If an employee says, ‘No, I will do only half of the work’, it does not seem to be victimisation if the employer is able to say: ‘You will not get paid the full amount’. That does not seem radical. It does not seem to be a concerted attack on employees for an employer to say: ‘If you do not do your work you do not get paid’. No honourable senator mentioned tonight that it is not the Government who is paying these people. .It is the taxpayers. I am quite sure that all taxpayers in the community do not want the hard earned money they have paid in tax to be spent on paying the wages of people who are not prepared to do the job they have contracted to do.

Senator Tate:

– But who decides it?

Senator WALTERS:

– They promised to do the work when they were employed. They were employed under certain requirements. The requirements were not that they would do that part of the work that they enjoy doing or wish to do and would not do that part of the work they do not want to do. The terms of employment are that they will do a fair day’s work in return for which they will get 100 per cent of their wages. That seems to me to be a very simple and straightforward thing to ask and a very straightforward thing for an employer to accept. A Mr Keith Anderson, who says that he has been a union member for 40 years, wrote his idea of what industrial relations should be all about. I will read it very quickly.

Senator Tate:

– Can you verify that?

Senator WALTERS:

– I will give Senator Tate a copy of the paper if he is so suspicious. Mr Anderson staled:

On employment an employee and his employer should sign a legal contract setting out the duties of both. This should be binding on both parties. Any subsequent dispute between the parties to be settled by (a) direct negotiations between the parties and (b) if this fails by independent arbitration. The decision of the arbitrator to be final.

I do not think any union would say the decision of the arbitrator would be final. Many an arbitration decision has been made in this country with the result that the union which did not like the decision did not, as Senator Harradine said earlier, accept the umpire’s decision, the decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, but went on strike and said: ‘We will not accept the umpire’s decision’. I would agree with a lot of what Senator Harradine said tonight if what he said was in fact practised. He said that arbitration is the answer and that everyone should accept the decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. If that were the case in this country we would have little industrial disputation. Unfortunately that is not the case in this country. The employers seem almost invariably to abide by the decision of the Commission, and I am sure Senator Harradine would agree with that. The majority of the unions also abide by it, but those radical unions to which Senator Harradine referred do not abide by it, never have done and never will do so because they are out to disrupt our whole way of life.

Senator McLaren:

– That is a lot of nonsense.

Senator WALTERS:

– As Senator McLaren well knows, the communist-led unions do react against the whole way of life which we in this country find so precious. If what Senator Harradine said was accurate and if everyone abided by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission’s decision, by the umpire’s decision, I would go along with what he said.

Senator Harradine:

– There is no appeal to an arbitrator in this.

Senator WALTERS:

– This Bill provides no recourse to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. As a matter of fact, it has been said that there should be no overriding decision.

Senator Tate:

– That’s goodbye to the last 10 minutes of your speech.

Senator WALTERS:

– I am fully aware of that. However, it does not deny those people, if they feel that an injustice has been done, some right of appeal. There is a right of appeal which no Opposition senator has mentioned tonight; that is, the right of appeal which the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act gives to any person. Let me quote from the speech delivered by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) in the House of Representatives, in which he said:

The . . . Act gives any person affected by an administrative decision of the government of the Commonwealth the right to go to the Administrative Review Tribunal to challenge the lawfulness of the decision that has been made.

So there is a right of appeal for anyone who believes that an injustice has been perpetrated.

Senator Tate:

– If you read my speech tomorrow you will see that I said that.

Senator WALTERS:

– If Senator Tate did say that, I apologise. I have dealt with the issues raised by the Opposition tonight. I will take up one matter with Senator Harradine. I was impressed with the beginning of his speech. He said that he could understand the concern of the Government with the nit picking of some of the radical sections of the Public Service in the past six months but the idea was not to attack the individual, rather the union. However, at no stage did he suggest how the Government should deal with the union, stop the nit picking or say to the union: ‘You will answer Ministers’ questions. You will do as the Minister directs. In offices throughout the country where you deal with members of the public you will answer their questions. Unfortunately, some people do their best to destroy any confidence that the public might have in them. They say: ‘We are on a rolling strike. We are on a partial strike. We do not do that work today. We do not hand out that pension. We do not do this, we do not do that. We are doing only 50 per cent of our work’.

Senator McLaren:

– You people went on strike here in 1975. You wouldn’t pass the Budget so that we could pay the public servants. You went on strike for three months.

Senator WALTERS:

– lt is time that Senator McLaren learnt that is was the people of Australia who threw out the Labor Government not the Governor-General or this Government. We went to the people and they voted out the Labor Government overwhelmingly. It is time Senator McLaren understood and accepted it. I do not know why he has to keep berating us about that matter.

Senator Harradine:

– In an industrial dispute the Government has the right to go to the Public Service Arbitrator or the Commission.

Senator WALTERS:

– I have already explained the rights of appeal. Everyone has the right of appeal even under this legislation. The fact that a person must receive a warning in writing before any action is taken indicates to me that he has some responsibility. Senator Harradine wants to deny the right of the individual public servant to show some responsibility for the work he is doing. He says that the individual is forced into strike action by the union. I believe it is time that the individual took responsibility for his own work. If he decides he will not do 100 per cent of his work he cannot expect to be paid 100 per cent of his salary. It is as simple as that. I am quite sure that the taxpayer does not want his money wasted on someone who is not prepared to work.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– The time at my disposal is brief. Liberal Party senators are in a bind. They harp about individual rights. The lowest common denominator in a successful industrial settlement is the response of the rank and file to an executive recommendation to return to work. We cannot get away from that situation. Honourable senators opposite talk about ill-considered action and leftist attitudes. Whilst the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Bill deals with the Public Service, the characteristics of the rank and file are the same throughout the trade union movement. Two major disputes have involved air traffic controllers and airline pilots. I think that most of them would be Liberal-National Country Party supporters. 1 do not sling off at that, but honourable senators opposite should not give us this drivel about Marxist influence in trade unions. If the Industrial Relations Bureau were doing its job it would have produced a thesis on the changed characteristics of the rank and file.

My father worked for Charlie Croft, who was an Australian Council of Trade Unions chieftain. I served under Monk. We have seen the Hawke era. The rank and file is now better educated. High falutin’ peace conferences and summit meetings are held between Ministers and trade union secretaries, but the litmus test is whether the rank and file will respond to any recommendations. For 10 months of the year Liberal-National Country Party supporters belittle trade union leaders and call them bosses and racketeers. If they do not the Press does. Those leaders meet Ministers and put forward proposals to members of the rank and file who say: ‘Let us wait another week to see what happens’. This is a reasonable reaction.

If we think conditions in society are better than they were in 1945 we have to expect the rank and file not to be docile. What is the alternative? Some of us have seen too many B-grade American films in which prototypes of Hoffa say to people ‘Get back to work’, and they do. This is not the healthy trade unionism we want. Of course, I applaud what is happening in Poland, but honourable senators should not tell me that the individual trends in that country which ought to be encouraged are the same in right wing countries. I cheer when I see trade unions in Latin America stand up against dictators and demand their individual rights.

There are two extremes. Honourable senators opposite seem to think that if Paul Munro says to the Public Service rank and file ‘I have had an agreement with Andrew Peacock’ that is apples. That does not work any more. Croft received adoration from the gas workers, including my father. Albert Monk had it a little harder. With all the eloquence of Bob Hawke he had enough commonsense to know that he could not ram a proposal through the rank and file. Senator Bishop and 1 are aware of the situation last year when the shunters at several yards in Sydney had a grievance. There was an argument. One of their spokesmen was suspended. They walked off the job. Everyone knows of industrial psychology. Do people think that a court order or Jack Maddox saying ‘Front up in the morning for the 6 a.m. shift’ would be effective? There have to be cooling-off periods. The same applies with the Public Service. Jack is as good as his master. Honourable senators may scorn that proposal. The rank and file is now better educated. Most members do not want to be shop stewards, much less paid officials. I do not blame them for not wanting the pressures and the intrusion into their social lives. Rank and file members like to snipe at their paid officials. The paid officials accept this. It is the same as taking a bump on the football field.

To say that such people are all potential traitors to the country is utter rubbish. It does not matter whether we have the British arbitration system, which is different to ours, or the American collective bargaining system. Honourable senators have eulogised individual action. They cheer at times on hearing that some union secretary has been rebuffed, lt cuts both ways. The Paul Munros and people such as him cannot snap their fingers and have the rank and file go back docilely. We talk about the free trade union movement and make comparisons with fascism and communism. We have to pay for our good reputation. Therefore it does not matter how often a dispute goes before a conciliation and arbitration commissioner.

All I have said here tonight I have said before in the presence of two diametrically opposed learned men in industrial law. One was retired Judge Dick Kirby and the other was Justice Macken, who is not another Justice Staples. I had a cup of coffee with them at an industrial seminar. They said: ‘Senator, all that you say is correct’. Former Justice Mary Gaudron nodded her head. When a person gets that endorsement he must be right. I will not lecture the Senate. Honourable senators opposite can talk until they are blue in the face. They should mingle with rank and file members. They do not think that we are the oracles any more than the judges are. That is the problem that governments face, even governments of my persuasion. Senator Knight knows that if he went out on the sidewalks in Canberra City the rank and file would give him stick about calling them Marxists.

Debate interrupted.

page 421

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 421

PUBLIC SERVICE AND STATUTORY AUTHORITIES BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator ELSTOB:
South Australia

– I will not keep the Senate very long. There are a few things which honourable senators on both sides have said in the debate concerning the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Bill which I believe are incorrect. First, I oppose this Bill simply because I believe, and always have believed, that industrial relations disputes will never be resolved by implementing laws. They will never be solved by bringing in lawyers. Bringing a third party into a dispute of any kind exacerbates that dispute. The only way to bring about better industrial relations in this country is to get employers and employees to talk together. Legislation will never solve the industrial problems of this nation. This Government would be far better off spending more money to bring about better industrial relations by seeing to it that the Clyde Cameron College is extended in order to foster a better understanding in the trade union movement. I believe that the employers have a part to play. They, as well as the employees, should be educated. The management of this country is deplorable. While there is management such as this there will never be a good, contented work force.

A lot has been said about this Bill. It has been said that everywhere in private industry, if there is no work, there is no pay. That is quite wrong. In my industry, the stevedoring industry, there is a provision in the award for two four-hour stop work meetings in a year on full pay. There is another provision in that award relating to unsafe working conditions. The men could stop work, pursuant to the provisions of section 23a of that award, and if the job is proved by a stevedoring authority to be unsafe, the men are paid. It is quite wrong to say that there is no such provision in any award. There are, to my knowledge, other awards that contain those provisions.

Under this legislation, if a person working in unsafe conditions dares to stop work, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission may say: ‘You go back to work’. It is up the the Commission whether he gets paid. I believe that is quite wrong. As I said before, the more this type of legislation is enacted, the more people will revolt against it, and there will never be industrial peace. The Public Service unions never have been militant unions but the Government is making them militant. While it continues with this practice it will make more and more trouble for itself. Governments of any political flavour should get right out of the industrial field and encourage people - the employers and the employees - to work together. I believe that is the only solution. We most certainly will never see industrial peace in this country until that situation arrives. It has to be worked at. There has to be trust on all sides to achieve that, and I believe that that is possible. I wanted only to indicate that there are awards under which people who do not work may be paid. Much has been said about that, and I do not want to hold up the Senate any longer.

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · Western Australia · LP

– I am sorry that the Opposition will not support this measure. I think a good deal of the opposition seems to have been based on a misunderstanding of the actual effect and purpose of the Bill. Certainly, the Government has not introduced this measure because it does not accept the importance and the value of the arbitration system. The measure has been introduced to deal with some very disturbing situations which have occurred in recent years in the Public Service. I really was rather staggered when Senator Tate told us about the history of the common law, of which he is no doubt an eminent student, and about certain situations. 1 am afraid he seemed to be living in the century that he was speaking about and not in the day and age that we are living in. He did not seem to be speaking about the problems we are confronted with now.

This legislation has not been introduced to further some draconian rights of the employer to impose his will without regard to the interests of the employee. This legislation has proved to be necessary because of some very positive disruptive actions that have been taken by some employees in furtherance of their industrial and indeed, in some cases, political objectives. If an employee goes on strike and does not work at all, he does not get paid. But there has evolved in recent times a situation which this legislation is designed to confront. That is a situation in which employees want to get the best of both worlds. They want to turn up at work but do only the work that they choose to do. That is what this legislation is about. They are seeking to be paid, but at the same time, as part of a campaign of industrial action and of industrial disruption, they refuse to do certain work.

Confronted with that situation, the Government decided that it would pursue its legal rights as it would if the employee did not work at all and did not get paid. The Government decided it would pursue its legal rights when an employee decided to take part in these campaigns, and not do a certain part of his work but demand pay. It was in that situation that the Government decided to seek to enforce the no work as directed - no pay principle at common law. But as a result of the interpretation of the judge in the case that has been referred to freely in this debate - Bennett’s case - it discovered that that course was not available to it. The judge found that the Public Service Act was a code in itself and had eliminated that common law principle. What we are seeking to do here is simply to amend the Act to restore that principle and to deal with a situation which I do not believe anybody in this Senate would support.

The fear of the Opposition is that this legislation will take away the rights that an employee has in the arbitration system. It will do nothing of the sort. If there are genuine disputes about particular conditions of work or about methods of work, the employees or the union can take those matters to the Public Service Arbitrator or to the Public Service Board. Agreement can be reached on new regulations to cover them or amendments could be made to existing awards to cover them if employees have genuine complaints and can convince the Arbitrator - or indeed, without going to arbitration, the Public Service Board - that there should be amendments to particular work practices or requirements. So there is absolutely nothing in this legislation which detracts from the arbitration system. The legislation is designed entirely to meet a form of industrial actionindustrial disruption - as I said, in some cases, even for political purposes that some members of the Public Service have indulged in in recent times.

There has been a lot of talk about there being no appeal or no rights of redress against action that may be taken under the proposed new section 32A contained in this Bill. The position is that if a direction is given, under the terms of this Bill it has to be a lawful direction, one that the person making it has the authority to make, and it has to be in respect of work that it is the duty of the employee to perform. Therefore, very major conditions must be complied with before this section can come into force.I have no doubt that if those conditions were not satisfied there would be methods of legal redress. But even further than that, under Public Service Regulation 33, an officer has the right to appeal to the Public Service Board against directions that are given to him. I believe the opposition which has been expressed to this legislation is misconceived. It is based upon a misunderstanding of the purpose of the legislation and the effect it will have when in operation. Despite the opposition that has been voiced to it, I hope that the Senate will support the measure and give it a speedy passage.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 30

NOES: 24

Majority…… 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– Pursuant to Standing Order 1 96a, I move:

I have moved that motion particularly in view of the response by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) to the second reading debate. During the second reading debate emphasis was placed on the fact that there is no true right of appeal from and authorised direction’. The Attorney-General in his reply to the second reading debate referred to Public Service Regulation 33 which provides for an appeal to the Public Service Board against an instruction. That is not a proper appeal at all. It is like an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. I believe that the Attorney-Generals’s response was quite inadequate and inappropriate.

I notice that the Attorney-General did not say - at least, I certainly did riot hear him say it - what Senator Walters said; that is, that under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1 977 an appeal may be made to the Administrative Review Tribunal. Of course, the Minister would not say that because he would know that those appeals would log-jam the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and also would not be adequate to meet the situation. What I said initially holds true. This legislation is playing into the hands of the extreme elements, not only within certain trade unions but also within certain sections of the Public Service. It is introducing unnecessary and unfair legislation which denies due process and right of appeal.

Finally, without delaying the Senate, I suggest that the Government is using the Public Service head of power under the Constitution to thwart what it says in its own words should be the case; that is, conciliation and arbitration. I believe that under all of those circumstances we should act as a genuine House of review and refer this matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs under Standing Order No. 1 96a as I have moved.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is the motion seconded?

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-I second the motion. For any legislation to be fair in the industrial relations field there must be a fair right of appeal. It is obvious from the speakers on this side of the House, Senator Harradine and the Australian Democrats, that the appeal in this case is to the person who makes the judgment in the first place. No appeal is fair unless it is a statutory appeal made to an independent body - independent of those who made the judgment in the first place. For that reason the Opposition seconds the motion.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The Government is opposed to the motion. The Government regards the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Bill 1980 as an urgent one because the situation with which it proposes to deal is one of great concern, as Senator Harradine has recognised. A problem may arise at any time. The Government cannot agree to the delay that would be involved if the proposal made by Senator Harradine were accepted. In the Government’s view it is not necessary to have the sort of inquiry that Senator Harradine has proposed. The Government does not accept the reason that he has proposed. I have dealt with the question of what rights an employee has in regard to directions that may be given to him. I said that if there were a concern that some direction had been given capriciously then there is the right to appeal under regulation 33 of the Public Service Regulations.

Senator Cavanagh:

– To whom?

Senator DURACK:

– To a superior officer. The honourable senator will never understand the Bill if he does not listen to what I am trying to say. Probably he will not even understand it then. The right to make the declaration of no work as directed - no pay can be made only if there has in fact been a lawful order - an order authorised by the person making it. That person’s right to make the order is determined by the powers that he or she has under various matters, whether they be regulations or matters governed by awards, and in that way defined. The direction has to be lawfully made and it has to be made in respect of the duties of the person employed. If it is not made lawfully there is no power to make the declaration at all. I did say that in the event that such a declaration were made legal redress would be available to an employee. Legal redress would not be to the Public Service Board in that case but, in my view, to a court. I do not propose to speculate on what the nature of the legal redress may be. There may well be available redress under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Certainly, if a lawful direction were not given there would be no lawful declaration that could be made under the specific clause of the Bill.

Although there is not an appeal structure built into this legislation there is a method of testing the legality of the decisions that may be made under the clause. The reference I made to regulation 33 was in relation to whether an employee felt that an order had been properly made. That is not so much directed to legality but to the propriety of the order. I further said that there would be no reason to exclude reference to the Public Service Arbitrator and seeking to have orders, regulations or awards altered, providing the employee is prepared to continue working under the regulation or direction that he is objecting to. What we are saying is that it ought not to be open to the employee himself to challenge the direction, except on legal grounds, under the ordinary situation that arises and also to claim that he should be paid for work that he has not had to do.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I think the statement of the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) needs -

Senator Durack:

– I raise a point of order. I have closed the debate.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no substance in the point of order. I call Senator Cavanagh.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The statement of the Attorney-General needs some reply. Senator Harradine - I think the Minister agrees with him - in all fairness said that we must ensure justice is done to the employee and therefore he should have a right to appeal to someone other than Caesar. The Minister said that in his opinion there is a right for a person to appeal to a court under certain circumstances. No legal opinion is infallible. Many legal opinions which are contested in court are found to be wrong. All we know is that in the Attorney-General’s opinion there is a right to appeal, but it may be found on application for an appeal that there is no right of appeal. Therefore, if a matter is ambiguous surely we should clarify it by permitting the consideration of the whole position by our judiciary in the Parliament. If we pass the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Bill 1 980 now, we are only taking a risk that the Attorney-General may be right. Whilst we accept that Ministers are right on many occasions, in relation to legal questions we can never accept their opinions.

Surely under our Constitution we should not accept legal opinion, however honestly given, as reflecting the true fact. The Minister also said that he does not accept the right of an employee to challenge the decision of a superior officer. Surely we must protect the underdog from the superior.

We must give the right of challenge to the employee if he thinks his pay was wrongfully withheld because of some action which he took. I would submit, therefore, that the safest way out of this situation - I do not know whether the Attorney-General is right - is to leave the matter to those with the legal ability to consider this question for them to prepare a report on the situation.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– I support the motion moved by Senator Harradine because it is quite clear from the remarks of the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) that the rights of appeal are very limited. I rise simply because I was challenged during the course of Senator Walters’ remarks by her observation that in fact the Opposition had not adverted to this point. During the second reading debate 1 made it clear that we on this side understood that there is a right of appeal in a very strict and legal narrow sense against an utterly unlawful direction, one that is utterly outside the terms of the legislation, lt may be that one could get the appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal though, as Senator Harradine pointed out, the Tribunal would be overwhelmed with work. It is not good enough to say that Regulation 33 is available because the matter merely goes through the hierarchy from one chief officer to the permanent head and further on. It is an appeal against a direction given by the Public Service Board to the Board itself.

On those grounds alone some sort of review by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs would be merited in order that moderate and good sense might come into this debate, the sort of moderation and good sense that would have been brought into the second reading debate had Senator Lewis remained on the speakers’ list. In the absence of that moderate voice from among the small T liberals on the other side I think the proposal by Senator Harradine that this matter go to the Standing Committee ought to be supported.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 30

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

In Committee

The Bill.

Amendment (by Senator Mason) proposed:

Page 7, clause 16, proposed sub-section 32a. (1), line 32, before ‘direction’ (first occurring), insert ‘reasonable’.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– In the opportunity given to the Australian Labor Party in the last few moments, and after some consideration of the matter, the Australian Labor Party has decided to support this amendment. I indicated in my speech during the second reading debate that the Labor Party certainly agrees with the spirit and intent of that amendment as it tries to bring within the express terms of the key section of the Act that quality of reasonableness which, in express terms, will say that this Parliament insists that any direction that is given should not be capricious, vindictive or in any way unreasonable. I admit that the criterion for reasonableness is not explicitly set out but involves social and industrial factors which ought to be taken into account. On behalf of the Labor Party, I express the Opposition’s support for that amendment.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– I sincerely thank the Australian Labor Party for its support of the amendment moved by the Australian Democrats. If this Government rejects the amendment I will be interested to hear its reasons for so doing. In my understanding of the English language I would have thought if Government senators vote against this amendment they are voting in favour of unreasonable directions being given to public servants.

Senator Walters:

– That is rubbish.

Senator CHIPP:

– It is crystal clear that Senator Walters’ understanding of the English language differs from mine on almost every occasion that it is spoken or read. I am not at all surprised at her expressing disagreement with the point I have just made. I am delighted at the way in which the Australian Labor Party has sincerely looked at a sensible constructive amendment put forward by an honourable senator in this place tonight. This chamber will be a very exciting House of Review after 1 July next year when this kind of sensible amendment just will not be wiped because of party numbers and senators voting like sheep.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The Government is not prepared to accept this amendment. The reason the Government adopts that view is not for the logic chopping indicated by Senator Chipp but because his proposal throw into great doubt the whole purpose of this part of the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Bill. It does not surprise me in the least that the Australian Labor Party is supporting the amendment. It may well be in accord with the Australian Labor Party’s attitude to this amendment. The amendment refers to a reasonable direction. The Bill provides that the direction must be a lawful direction within the authority of the person making it; it must be to perform work which it is the duty of the employee to perform.

Senator Evans:

– There is a big difference between that and reasonableness, and you know it.

Senator DURACK:

– Of course there is. That is why I am opposing the amendment. The explanation is this: The direction must be lawful; it must be in accord with the awards that apply or with Public Service regulations. The policy we are pursuing is that if an employee does not abide by the legal position he is not to be paid. If he wants to change the regulations or the awards the fullest opportunities for him to do so exist in industrial law. We are saying that if, in contradiction of the existing laws relating to him at that time, he does not obey the direction, he is not to be paid. That is what all this is about. If the Opposition imports questions of reasonable directions, it opens up the whole question of whether there ought to be that provision or regulation. Challenge of that issue by a person should be done in the ordinary industrial process. The Government is seeking by this provision to ensure that if a person does not abide by the legal rules applying to him at any particular time he is not to be paid. That is all this proposal is about.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– I believe this amendment is an attack on the Public Service. To suggest that undue, unnecessary directions be made, as Opposition senators are hinting at, is an insult to public servants. I might add that it is not out of character for the Australian Labor Party of late. I draw to the attention of the chamber the fact that at the Labor Party conference in Tasmania last Saturday there was an all out attack on the Public Service of that State. Indeed, the Premier said that he would restructure the whole of the Public Service of Tasmania because the public servants would not abide by his policies. The Tasmanian Public Service is up in arms. It actually abused the Premier and said that it had never been attacked so badly before.

Senator Tate:

– Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I ask you to restrain Senator Walters and ask her to keep her remarks relevant to the amendment proposed rather than ranting and raving about a sovereign government of this Federation.

Senator WALTERS:

– As I said, the Labor Party’s support of the Australian Democrats’ amendment is obviously a calculated attack on the Public Service.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Are you talking about the legislation?

Senator WALTERS:

– Yes, I am talking about the amendment before the Committee tonight. It is an attack. As I have already said, the Premier of Tasmania attacked the Tasmanian Public Service. I am quite sure that Senator Tate, who was reported in the newspapers as being at that conference, heard every word the Premier said - that he would restructure the Public Service, not just ask its members to work 100 per cent of the time for 100 per cent of the wages, as we are doing in this place tonight.

Senator Coleman:

– I wish to raise a point of order. Once again we find Senator Walters indulging in a second reading speech. We ask her simply to contain her remarks to the amendment that has been moved.

Senator WALTERS:

– The amendment is an attack on the Public Service. In saying that that is the case, I am pointing out that at this moment the Premier is fighting for his life against the Public Service in Tasmania.

Senator Tate:

– I raise a point of order. Mr Chairman, it is evident that Senator Walters is using the opportunity to debate this amendment to launch an all out attack on the Tasmanian Government. 1 ask you to restrain her.

Senator WALTERS:

– All I am pointing out is that this Government is only asking the Public Service to work a full day for a full day’s pay. We are not asking for the Public Service to be reformed and for the employees we do not like to be thrown out, as is happening in Tasmania.

Senator Evans:

– The redeployment and retirement Bill is the one that throws out public servants. That is another piece of Fraser legislation.

Senator WALTERS:

- Senator Evans does not like the facts.

Senator Coleman:

– - I raise a point of order. Mr Chairman, I have to ask you to direct Senator Walters to contain her remarks to the amendment that has been moved. This debate concerns the insertion of the word ‘reasonable’. It is not an opportunity for Senator Walters to flout the authority of the Chair as she is now doing. I ask that you maintain your authority in this chamber by calling her to order and directing her to address herself to the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have suggested to Senator Walters that she address herself to the amendment.

Senator WALTERS:

– I have said all that I need to say. It is obvious that the Opposition does not like it. Let me add one last word. Apparently we are to have Senator Chipp in this place for the next six months threatening the Government with the words: ‘We will see how it goes after June’. I think the people of Australia ought to be made aware that this is the sort of thing in which he is indulging. He does not attend all the divisions in this place. He does not attend when he does not want to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! You will confine yourself to the amendment, Senator Walters.

Senator WALTERS:

– But he threatens this Government.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Despite the opposition that is being expressed against Senator Walters, I congratulate her. I think she has done a good job for her party, condemning utterances without any reason or excuse. I suppose her speech will sound good to the Party and it will appear that she is the saviour of many of the things that we are trying to destroy in this life. That will look good on paper. But any student of reason would see that there is no basis for it, and they would condemn Senator Walters.

She works on the principle that she can fool all of the people all of the time. She was trying to fool a number of electors with the principle she espoused. She does not look at the reasonableness of the case.

It is not only the Premier of Tasmania who has abused or condemned public servants. Over the years, many members of the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party have condemned public servants. But they have never said that there is reason for penalising public servants if there is a just cause for their action. The fact that the Premier of Tasmania has condemned them is no justification why they should be battened down now under this legislation. Although Senator Walters said that the Bill seeks to ensure a full day’s work for a full day’s pay, that is not the question in this amendment. It is accepted at this stage that if there is a reasonable direction and the employee does not work he does not get paid. The amendment addresses itself to the proposition that if an employee does not obey a direction, whether it is reasonable or not, he should be penalised. That is what the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) says should happen. The issue is whether a penalty should be imposed on anyone who does not obey an unreasonable direction. That is what we are discussing.

I accept the Labor Party’s point that the penalisation of employees who do not do their full quota of work will lead to confrontation which will deprive the Australian public of many of the facilities that the Public Service is prepared to offer during a period of industrial disputation. Such a provision cannot be supported on any basis, as we suggested in moving our second reading amendment. The Bill having been given a second reading, it is a question of ensuring justice. By agreeing to the second reading we have accepted that if the employee will not obey a reasonable direction he should not receive a full day’s pay. The amendment seeks to insert the word reasonable. A direction could be anything. It may not be lawful; it may not be reasonable. But an employee has to obey the direction otherwise he will lose his entitlement to a salary. To oppose the inclusion of the word reasonable is to accept that we expect an employee to obey a direction whether it is reasonable or unreasonable. It is logical to believe any person would agree to obey a direction whether that direction is reasonable or unreasonable?

The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) says that provision will be made for an appeal on this question. Under the proposed amendment an employee will have the right to appeal to an appellate tribunal on the basis that the direction given was unreasonable. But he could not make such an appeal under this legislation. He has a responsibility to obey any direction given to him. Surely we have not mangled the public servants to such an extent that they have to obey every direction whether reasonable or unreasonable. I think Senator Walters showed a hatred for workers - that is all it is. During meetings of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee Senators Missen, Hamer and Bonner frequently insist on the insertion of the word reasonable. In the name of logic and justice they should vote with the Opposition when a division is taken on this amendment. No one can justify that there must be total obedience to a direction that may be unreasonable.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

-I rise very briefly to answer some of the points that the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) made and to implore Government senators of reasonable inclination and intelligence to support the amendment. It is sad to see the gut reaction of antipathy the Government appears to have to the word reasonable. To get back to what the M inister said, I would have thought that it was obvious to anyone who has worked anywhere that it is possible for a supervisor at any level to direct a subordinate in an unfair or discriminatory way within the scope of lawful duties and lawful areas of authority. It would only be a matter of subtly, or perhaps not too subtly, putting an unfair or an unreasonable work load within the scope or term of duties on a particular person for whatever purpose.

I may say at this stage that I reject utterly Senator Walters ridiculous statement that we are in some way making an imputation against the Public Service. Naturally we are trying to do something which will benefit the vast body of public servants and protect them against an unreasonable approach which would come only too readily if the proposed new sub-section is passed in its present form - that is, if the amendment were defeated. Again I implore Government senators at least to see that there is a modicum of sense in this amendment. What is more, Government acceptance of this amendment would at least show public service unions and unions generally that perhaps there was just the tiniest spirit of compromise and that it was not going to be one bit of union bashing every inch of the way. I would suggest that would be just a little step in the right direction and something worth doing.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 30

Majority…… 6

AYES

NOES

Questions so resolved in the negative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 428

ADJOURNMENT

Mr Raul Martinez - Mr Kim Dae Jung - Mr George Fernandes - Civil Liberties

Motion (by Senator Durack) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

– Ordinarily, one perhaps should apologise for delaying the Senate at this late hour but the matter to which I wish to refer is of such importance that I believe I need not do so. It arises from a question whichI asked of Senator Dame Margaret

Guilfoyle last week in relation to Mr Raul Martinez, a political prisoner in Uruguay. 1 wish to refer in particular to the reply which the minister read our in this place yesterday afternoon.

Raul Martinez, a school teacher, has been incarcerated in Uruguay for the last nine years on charges which he firmly denies and which all of the evidence that I have been able to obtain also denies. There were four charges, none of which mentions the new allegation that has been made against him. The Minister, in part of her reply, had this to say: lt appears from information obtained during this visit . . .

The reference is to a visit by an Australian Embassy official to Montevideo -

  1. . that Martinez is in solitary confinement in prison as a suspected member of a terrorist movement.

My question arose from the fact that Martinez’s relatives had gone to the prison in the course of a normal visit to see him and had been given no information whatsoever. They suspected, therefore, that he had been, to put it crudely, done away with - taken away and shot. If it is a fact that he is in solitary confinement, I can assure the Minister that his relatives in Australia will be greatly relieved. They will know that at least he is still alive.

I am intrigued by the next part of the Minister’s reply, which was as follows:

Martinez was mentioned in the Press on 28 November as being among a group of six detainees claimed to be the ringleaders of the new subversive movement linked with the Soviet Union to overthrow the Uruguayan Government.

I ask the Minister to inquire of the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Mr Street) as to what news that item refers. Was it Uruguayan news of Australian news? It does not quite gel. The fact is that Martinez has been incarcerated in either concentration camps or the Libertad prison in Uruguay for the last nine years. Under those circumstances I cannot perceive at all how he could be charged with being one of the ring leaders of a new subversive movement linked with the Soviet Union. I ask the Minister whether she will try to obtain that information for me.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I also apologise for delaying the Senate, but I believe the matters that I wish to raise tonight are important. Today in the Senate we passed without dissent a motion concerning the efforts of the free trade union movement in Poland, the Solidarity movement, to achieve its aims - to warn the Soviet Union about the international consequences of its possible intervention in that area. We know that in the world there are thousands, perhaps millions, of cases of abuse of civil liberties and of freedom as we know it. Tonight I wish to speak about two people who are internationally known and renowned politicians and to express my concern at the attitude of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs to them. The first is Mr Kim Dae Jung, the South Korean Opposition leader, who until recently was the leader of the Democratic Socialist Party in South Korea. As I said on 18 September in the Estimates debate in this place, he was previously a vice-president of Socialist International. He is a well known politician and democrat who in 1973 was kidnapped from Japan, taken to South Korea, tried and subjected to the strange form of justice in that country. Recently he was condemned to death by a military tribunal in that country, which is in fact now governed by a military dictatorship. That death sentence has now been confirmed by an appeals tribunal which is just an extension of the military tribunal which originally condemned him to death.

I will not go into the details of Mr Kim Dae Jung’s trial and the injustices, by our standards, which prevailed in that case. I merely wish to contrast the views of the Japanese Government. That Government has close trade and diplomatic ties with South Korea. It has protested vigorously about the treatment of Mr Kim Dae Jung and has caused considerable trouble for itself in South Korea because of its defence of civil liberties and justice in the case of Mr Kim Dae Jung. The Government of Japan has been condemned by the Press in South Korea because of the firm stand of Mr Suzuki, the Japanese Prime Minister, in protest against the trial, the appeal and the death sentence, the carrying out of which is the possible fate of Mr Kim Dae Jung. I compare that with the answer given in the House of Representatives yesterday by Mr Street, our Foreign Minister. In answer to a question from Mr Dobie, a member of his own party, he said, in an extraordinary statement, that he would not make a very firm comment and would not give the Australian Government’s view on the death sentence which had been passed on Mr Kim Dae Jung, except to say:

Of course, we hope that the sentence will be changed.

He then went on to say that because Mr Kim Dae Jung’s appeal is now before the courts in South Korea, the Australian Government considers that the matter is sub judice - despite the fact that it is before the courts in a country which, no matter how close our ties with it are, is still governed by a military dictatorship. He said he would not comment because he considered the subject sub judice. Compare that statement with the comments of previous Foreign Ministers on the treatment of dissidents in the Soviet Union and in other countries. They were very free with their comments and with their condemnation, as they should have been. But in the case of South Korea, one suspects because of our trade ties with that country, Mr Street decided that the matter is sub judice and will not comment in any condemnatory manner about the treatment which has been dealt out to Mr Kim. I will not go on with the matter of Mr Kim except to say that members on both sides of this House and of the Parliament have expressed concern about the treatment of a man who is a democrat, who has had a long history of political activity in his country and who was narrowly defeated in a recent presidential election in that country but who now is condemned to death, in our view, merely for taking part in activities which in this country would be considered normal political activities.

I wish also to draw attention to another matter and to the situation of another man who is leader of a political party in his own country and who, in fact, previously was the Vice-President of Socialist International. I refer, of course, to Mr George Fernandes who until recently was leader of the Socialist Party in India. In the time of the emergency declared by the Prime Minister of India, Mrs Indira Ghandi, Mr Fernandes was gaoled for no other reason than that he was an opposition member and because he opposed the Government at the time. When Mrs Ghandi was overthrown as a result of the excesses of that emergency, Mr Fernandes became a member of the new Government. Mr Fernandes is well known throughout the world. He was in this country and in this Parliament just before the last general election only a few weeks ago. He is well known to many people in this country.

Mr Fernandes has been an active member of his party and an active person in politics in India; so active, in fact, that he has been arrested many times under the strange laws of that country. Since the age of 1 9 he has been active in the union movement and the Socialist Party in India. On 15 November last he was arrested because he was a prominent speaker at a rally of farmers outside the administrative headquarters in the Nasik district of Maharashtra in India. It was a demonstration of the sort that we have seen frequently in this country to bring to the attention of the Government the low prices being paid for the products of that area - sugar cane and onions. Mr Fernandes has frequently been a prominent spokesman not only for the trade union movement in India but also for the cause of Indian farmers who frequently suffer from low prices, poor conditions and exploitation by the people who distribute the products of their efforts.

Having spoken at this meeting, Mr Fernandes along with some ten other members, was arrested merely for taking part in that protest. All the other members arrested at that protest were released after two days but Mr Fernandes. as has happened in the past because he is a prominent and well known politician, was detained for 10 days and maltreated in the gaol, as so often occurs in India.

The matter was raised in the Lok Sabha on 25 November last by members of his own party. Considerable concern was expressed at the time. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber who know Mr Fernandes had the matter of his arrest brought to their attention over a week ago. We have been trying to find out just what happened, under what circumstances he was arrested and what charges were laid against him. Last week at least two members of the Opposition tried to find out through the Press and through the Department of Foreign Affairs just what had happened. It was only today that we were able to receive a cable from the Department of Foreign Affairs telling us that Mr Fernandes had been arrested and detained for 10 days under what is called in India a magisterial order that, in fact, no charges had been laid against him and that there were serious allegations that he had been maltreated in that time in gaol.

I raise this matter because we frequently hear in the Parliament justifiable complaints about the maltreatment of people in totalitarian countries of the Right and the Left where civil liberties are abused. Too often we ignore those abuses in countries which are close neighbours of ours, which are associated with us in the Commonwealth of Nations or which have close trade relations with us. We do not hear protests. We frequently hear the view that we should soft pedal on the abuse of civil liberties in these countries because of their close association with us. As I have done previously in the case of Kim Dae Jung and others, I register my protest as a senator that we discriminate in this way and tend to ignore the abuse of civil liberties of people in countries with which we trade or with which we have some close historical significance. As a middle-sized country we should defend civil liberties in any country where it is important to defend them. It is important that we condemn the abuse of civil liberties, as Senator Primmer has done tonight, not only in South American countries but also in countries close to us which have a close association with us.

If we will not do so, no one else will. If we do not stand up for people who are abused and who have their civil liberties trodden upon in countries like this, despite our close association with them, there will be no hope in the world for the advancement of the civil liberties of ordinary people. There will be no hope in the world for people to express themselves freely, politically, industrially or socially, lt is for this reason that I raise the matter tonight of two prominent men, Kim Dae Jung and George Fernandez. One could bring up every night in this place the cares of thousands of people who are not known to us and of whom we have not heard but we know are suffering from this sort of abuse. At a time when the civil liberties of prominent men who are well known throughout the world for their democratic attitudes and their abilities, and in the case of the two men to whom I have referred, their desire and willingness to stand up for freedom everywhere, are being abused we should demand that the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Government of this country bring such abuse to the notice of the world.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Finance · Victoria · LP

(11.53) - Senator Primmer raised again the matter of Raul Martinez who was the subject of an answer I gave yesterday. The only information I have is that which was given in my answer. I will retrace some of that information. During the last week the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Street) received numerous inquiries from people and organisations concerned about reports that Martinez had been abducted from Libertad prison in Uruguay. Our Ambassador in Buenos Aires, who is also accredited to Uruguay, sent an officer of the Embassy to Montevideo to investigate these reports. It appears from information obtained during this visit that Martinez is in solitary confinement in Libertad prison as a suspected member of the Tupamaros terrorist movement.

Martinez was mentioned in the Montevideo Press on 28 November as being among a group of six detainees claimed to be the ringleaders of a new subversive movement linked with the Soviet Union to overthrow the Uruguayan Government. The answer stated that Martinez is a Uruguayan citizen. I am not aware of any more details with regard to the subversive movement that was questioned but it was reported in the Montevideo Press on 28 November. I will again refer to the Minister for Foreign Affairs the query the honourable senator has raised to see whether there is any later information. If there is, I am sure that the Minister will make it readily available. I will also refer to the Minister for Foreign Affairs the matters concerning Kim Dae Jung and George Fernandes. I am sure that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be very interested in the comments that were made.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.55 p.m.

page 432

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Western Australian Urban Lands Council (Question No. 12)

Senator Rocher:

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. 1 ) What is the total amount borrowed from the Commonwealth by the Western Australian Government on behalf of the Western Australian Urban Lands Council.
  2. What is the total of principal and accrued interest to date.
  3. At what rate is interest currently being charged.
  4. Is interest payable on principal only; if not, is interest payable on principal and accrued interest.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The total amount borrowed is $28,428,000.
  2. The total of principal and accrued interest to IS June 1980 is $4 1,989,000.
  3. Under the existing agreements, the rates of interest charged are equivalent to the long-term bond rates.
  4. Interest is payable on the principal and the accrued interest.

Mr M. C. Timbs: Employment by Iwasaki Companies (Question No. 33)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

Has Mr M. C. Timbs ever been employed by the Iwasaki group of companies; if so, on what date did lie resign (see answer to Question No. 3100, Senate Hansard, page 666, dated 9 September 1980).

Senator Peter Baume:
LP

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

See answer to Question No. 3152, Senate Hansard, page 1 382, dated 1 8 September 1 980.

Wodonga: Interim Development Order (Question No. 120)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. What is the current status of the Interim Development Order prepared by the Rural City of Wodonga and submitted to the Town and Country Planning Board in April 1 980.
  2. If the Interim Development Order is awaiting approval by the Ministerial Council established under the AlburyWodonga Development Act 1973 (a) what is the reason for the delay; and (b) when is a response expected.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The Interim Development Order of the Rural City of Wodonga is awaiting approval by the Victorian Government under State legislation.
  2. See answer to (1).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 December 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19801204_senate_32_s87/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant