Senate
5 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 a.m., and read prayers.

page 433

EDUCATION IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Notice of Motion

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, 1 shall move:

That the Senate as a States House expresses its grave concern that the Tonkin Liberal Government in South Australia through the actions of ils Minister for Education, is destroying the morale of concerned parents and teaching staff by:

Taking advisory staff - ‘whose job it is to advise young stair and initiate progressive programs’ - and placing these advisory staff back in the class room making claims that there is an improved teacher-student ratio;

The Minister claiming that the teacher-student ratio is 1 to 19, whereas visits to schools clearly show that a ratio of 1 to 30 is quite common and, in some instances, I to 37;

The Minister apparently using a formula of dividing the total number of State enrolments by the total number of teachers, including Principals, employed, to arrive at his figure of 1 to 19;

The displacement of teachers in many country primary schools which again is increasing class sizes.

page 433

ABORTION

Notice of Motion

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

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

That the Senate is of the opinion that financial grants by the Commonwealth Government or its statutory authorities should not be provided, either directly or indirectly, to those organisations in public health areas the officials of which advocate that abortion is an acceptable or desirable form of ‘fertility control’.

page 433

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 433

QUESTION

DOCUMENTS ON AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE AND FOREIGN POLICY 1968-1975

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Is it the case, as was claimed in a letter sent last night by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Street, a copy of which I believe is now in the Attorney’s possession, that the Department of Foreign Affairs has photocopied multiple copies of the book Documents on Australian Defence and Foreign Policy 1968-1975 for circulation to relevant offices and embassies? If that is so, when Messrs Walsh and

Munster take legal action against the Commonwealth, as no doubt they will when they hear of this, for breach of their own copyright, at least in regard to the SO pages of introductory and linking material which they contributed to the book, what possible legal defence does the Commonwealth think it will be able to offer to such action, given that the copying here seems to fall well outside the established categories of fair dealing?

Finally, how does the Government reconcile the apparent actions of the Foreign Affairs Department with the strictures imposed upon members and senators by the Parliamentary Librarian and by the Presiding Officers, at the request of the Government? If it is against the spirit of the present injunction for members and senators to copy the book for purposes of better informing themselves, how can it possibly be within the spirit of the court order for the Government itself to be doing the same?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have received a copy of a letter dated yesterday from Mr Holding, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, to Mr Street, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, dealing with the matters Senator Evans has raised. I have not been able as yet to obtain information as to whether the allegations about photocopying of the book by the Department of Foreign Affairs are correct or to ascertain the facts of this matter. In that event, even if I were minded to do so, I would not be prepared to comment upon the legal opinions which Senator Evans has added to his question. I do not know whether Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has any information on the matter. I will refer the question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and endeavour to obtain the facts. I will give consideration to the other matters contained in Senator Evans’s question when I ascertain the facts.

Senator EVANS:

– I ask a supplementary question. In the event of the claims I have made turning out to be true, as I am sure they will, will the Government undertake to recommend to the Presiding Officers and the Parliamentary Librarian that they remove the strictures that have been placed on members of parliament getting proper and full access to the book with an opportunity to copy such portions of it as they wish?

Senator DURACK:

– I am not prepared to give any undertakings on this matter until I have ascertained the facts and given consideration to the points Senator Evans has raised and any other matters that may occur to me.

page 434

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA POST COURIER

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, refers to the review of the Federal Public Service announced by the Prime Minister, particularly the section about Federal activities which might be unnecessarily intruding into the private sector. Has the Minister seen reports of claims by private courier services that Australia Post Courier is making such an intrusion? In view of the fact that certain tax and other advantages are enjoyed by Australia Post Courier, will the ministerial committee of review examine this position in some depth?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am aware, of course, of the services of Australia Post Courier and the services performed by private couriers for many years. I am not aware of the state of the competition between the services at this stage. On 6 November the Prime Minister announced the Government’s intention to establish a committee of Ministers to review the functions of Commonwealth departments. Certainly, one of the terms of reference of that committee concerns the duplication of government activities by private operators in the same area. The committee is still conducting its review and will be doing so, I think, for some time yet. I will refer Senator Davidson’s specific question to the committee and ask it, if it has not already done so, to give consideration to that matter.

page 434

QUESTION

NOONKANBAH

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware that the Western Australian Government has granted two more mineral claims on Nookanbah station on a site which the Western Australian Museum has classified as sacred? Can the Minister inform the Senate what mechanisms have been established in order to ensure the validity of Senator Chaney’s assertion that there will never be another Noonkanbah?

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

– I am not aware that approvals have been granted in terms raised by the honourable senator. I will undertake to examine that matter and to find out what is the situation. As to the second part of the honourable senator’s question, I refer her to a series of statements made by my predecessor at the time of the Noonkanbah dispute in which he made it clear that it is the Commonwealth’s view that by a process of consultation between parties most situations like that can be avoided and prevented. That is still the Commonwealth view.

page 434

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Education. At a recent symposium on small business held in Melbourne attention was drawn to the fact that much of the failure in small business had to be attributed to the fundamental lack of teaching at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. Professor Meredith stated:

In Australia, innumerable Government departments, agencies, tertiary institutions and private organisations are associated with education and training programs for small enterprises without any visible co-ordination or national plan.

Can the Minister have the Minister for Education institute an examination of this matter at ministerial council level and have a special curriculum committee set up to prepare appropriate courses for use throughout Australia?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I take note of the matters raised by Senator Archer. The Curriculum Development Centre may have done some work in this area, although I am not aware of it. I will refer the question to the Minister for Education and ask him to take note of the matters and provide an early answer for the Senate.

page 434

QUESTION

DISAPPEARANCE OF CHILD

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. I refer to the Chamberlain case at Ayers Rock and what we could probably term politely as the religious amnesia which seems to beset the husband and wife in that case. What stage has the coroner’s inquiry reached? Were the people concerned subjected to a lie detector test? Who gave the order about the indiscriminate outright slaughter of dingoes? Was it the National Parks and Wildlife Service or was it the people under Paul Everingham?

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– My knowledge of this whole case is based upon what I have read in the Press. It seems to me, first, that it was a tragedy by any measure. I hope that the honourable senator would agree with that. It was a case in which a child was lost. As the case is still subject to coronial inquiry and as I do not have any particular information on it, I think it would be inappropriate for me to try to take on board the other matters that the honourable senator has raised.

page 434

QUESTION

CHRISTMAS STAMPS

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, is asked as the season of good will approaches.

Senator McLaren:

– It was not the season of good will last night when we were debating the Public Service legislation.

Senator WALTERS:

– As today is the last day of the session I feel that even Senator McLaren might agree that it is a season of good will. Is the Minister aware that as the Christmas season approaches it has been necessary for Father Christmas to select a base and that he has chosen Christmas Hills near Smithton, Tasmania, as the most suitable place to establish his southern hemisphere residential and business address? Does the Minister agree that that famous gentleman has excellent taste and that his choice is to be applauded? In addition, is the Minister aware that a special coloured postcard has been produced, the Christmas stamp on which will be cancelled with a unique postmark featuring Father Christmas and his sleigh drawn by two kangaroos flying over Christmas Hills? Is the Minister aware that Christmas Hills is a location where a post office does not exist and that therefore, from a collector’s point of view, the postcard will be a rare philatelic item? The non-profit stamp promotion councils are promoting the sale of this multicoloured postcard to raise funds for worthy children’s projects and the promotion of stamp collecting as an educational hobby. Does the Minister agree that this exercise is typical of the ingenuity of all Tasmanians and in particular the Tasmanians who belong to Australia Post?

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– I have listened with great interest to the question asked by the honourable senator and I was most interested by her reference to the season of good will. I think she provided most of the answers to the question when she asked it. I will refer it to my colleague for any extra comments he may wish to make.

page 435

QUESTION

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION FILES

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I direct his attention to an article written by the journalist Brian Toohey from Washington, published in the National Times of 5 October this year. As this article gives proof that the American Federal Bureau of Investigation has an 1 8-page file on the deaths of Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler at Lane Cove, Sydney, on New Year’s Day 1963 and as, for security reasons, the Americans will not release the report for scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act, will the Minister seek information on the file and the contents which may assist the New South Wales Police which, after 17 years, are unable even to determine the cause of death?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI shall refer the question raised by Senator Cavanagh to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his response.

page 435

QUESTION

HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE CORPORATION

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. It is reported that the Government is reconsidering its previous decision to sell the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. What is the justification for this reconsideration? Will the Minister agree that the Government has been quite unsuccessful at reducing its involvement in areas which can and are being handled by private enterprise?

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

– I noted the comments my colleague, Mr McVeigh, made on this matter yesterday when he indicated in the House of Representatives that the matter was being reconsidered by the Government. I believe that the reasons for that are plainly obvious. There has been substantial representation on that matter. I will refer Senator Thomas’ question to Mr McVeigh for any further comment.

page 435

QUESTION

TELECOM AUSTRALIA AND AUSTRALIAN POSTAL COMMISSION: PROFITS

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Profits of Telecom Australia have risen steadily from the initial $ 152.4m in 1975-76 to $21 1.5m for 1979-80. The Australian Postal Commission also had a profit of $22. 6m for the year 1978-79 and finished with a surplus of $1 1.7m for 1979-80. The credit for this success of Telecom and Australia Post must go to my colleague Senator Reg Bishop, who was the Australian Labor Party Minister who set up both commissions in 1974. I ask the Minister: When will the Australian people get the benefit of the above profits by way of cheaper and more efficient telephone and postal services?

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– The honourable senator asked questions relating both to Telecom Australia and Australia Post regarding profits which they made in the last financial year. 1 have no information in relation to the Telecom profit and I will pass that part of the question on to my colleague for the provision of a detailed response. In relation to Australia Post, I am able to advise the honourable senator of some of the factors behind the profit. In the latter part of 1979 Australia Post’s forward estimates of revenue and projected costs indicated that the Commission would be likely to experience a substantial loss on its trading. As a result of that, Australia Post sought the Minister’s approval to increase the basic postal tariff from 20c to 22c. It was estimated at that time - December 1979 - that that would allow the Commission to break even on trading. The increase was then applied from 31 March 1980.

Experience has shown that an increase in the basic postal charge usually results in a decrease in mail volume, and this factor was taken into account as part of the estimating calculations. But as it happened, a decrease in mail volume did not occur - in fact it increased - and therefore the estimating was faulty to that extent. This situation, coupled with a substantial and unexpected increase in philatelic sales, which were up by 75 per cent on those of the previous year, resulted in the substantial trading profit. In the final part of his question the honourable senator asked when that profit would be passed on to consumers. I think that is a very proper question for me to refer to my colleague for detailed response.

page 436

QUESTION

DISABLED PERSONS

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I refer the Minister for Social Security to the report from the National Women’s Advisory Council entitled ‘My Child was born Disabled’ which highlights, as the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has pointed out, the lack of information about support available for the disabled and their families. 1 ask the Minister: Will the Government give this matter urgent consideration as a fundamental requirement if the disabled are to participate equally in the community? Is any action under way to provide more adequate information on these matters to the disabled and their families to ensure that they are able to utilise all the services, facilities and assistance available to them.

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

– I am aware of the report from the National Women’s Advisory Council which was tabled in the Senate earlier this week. In fact, my attention was drawn to the report before it was tabled by one of the participants, the mother of a disabled child. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that this rather slim report is a little unusual when compared with other reports that cross honourable senators’ desks. It is a very short report. It was drawn from 150 mothers of disabled children. It is admirably brief and direct in its comment. I commend it to honourable senators for their attention, bearing in mind that next year is to be the International Year of Disabled Persons. The report, which I have had a chance to read but not to study closely as yet, draws attention to the difficulty raised by the honourable senator in his question. That is a matter about which the Government is concerned and about which action is taking place, particularly in the context of the International Year of Disabled Persons to be held next year.

I undertake to the Senate to ensure that the report is studied closely by my Department. I am sure it will be studied closely by the other relevant departments in this area. I am sure the Senate would not want me to go into a detailed answer now. I have a brief from my Department regarding the report because it was aware of the interest which would be engendered by it. I merely say that I think the report is instructive in that it not only raises matters which suggest that governments need to take action - that is, of course, a responsibility of ours to pursue - but also draws attention to a number of areas where people in the community could make the lives of mothers and of disabled children easier. I hope that we will be able to ensure that this report gets a wide distribution amongst health professionals and others who are largely involved in this area.

page 436

QUESTION

ELECTION ADVERTISING

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. Was it necessary for election advertising in newspapers during the last Federal election to carry an authorisation? If so, does the Australian Electoral Office monitor newspapers to determine whether this requirement is complied with? Were there any instances of non-compliance?

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– I understand that it is necessary for newspaper advertisements to carry an authorisation. The honourable senator asked whether the Australian Electoral Office actually monitors the advertisements which appear in newspapers. I do not know the answer to that question. We should be able to obtain an answer fairly simply. He then asked a consequential question as to whether any examples of noncompliance were detected. I do not know the answer to that question. I shall direct that part of the question also to my colleague the Minister for Administrative Services and let the honourable senator have his response.

page 436

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS: EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs share a view expressed in this place about the suitability of women to undertake major and significant tasks in the field of Aboriginal affairs? Can he assure the Senate that in the administration of his Department he will ensure that appointments, promotions and the like will be made entirely on the assessment of personal merit without discrimination on the basis of sex or other irrelevant criteria?

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– I am aware of the comments made in this place and the subsequent Press publicity. The choice of a spokesman by the Opposition is entirely a matter for the Opposition. My function is to make available to that person all the support I can. This 1 have already done as Senator Ryan knows. I have given her access to daily Press clippings, briefings from the Department and such records as I can make available. The goal I am seeking to achieve and which, I am sure, Senator Ryan is also seeking to achieve is the advancement of the Aboriginal society. While that is the case, I am delighted. In many Aboriginal communities throughout Australia women are taking a leading role in community affairs. It will interest honourable senators to know that women are represented on about half the councils in the northern half of the Northern Territory at this time. Although traditionally the economic and social roles of men and women in Aboriginal society were different, they were always complementary. Although women did not take part in some activities, equally they were engaged in other activities in which men were not welcome to take part.

Interesting material about the ceremonial role of women is available in recent reports by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner on land claims in the Northern Territory. Some of the evidence in relation to the role of women in the Northern Territory is contained in the report of the Utopia pastoral lease claim to which I refer honourable senators if they are interested. There is no doubt that Aboriginals are part of modern Australian society. Their behaviour and their choices in particular situations are often strongly influenced by their traditional culture. Of course, Government policies take account of this. Senator Puplick’s question also asked whether the Government would take into account the sex of people in making available positions or opportunities for promotion. The answer is: Of course not. We will seek to promote people on merit in the usual way. I am grateful for the chance to make our position clear.

page 437

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING SYSTEM

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Firstly, 1 remind him that there have been at least three major reviews of the Australian Broadcasting system since the Fraser Government came to power. I refer to comments made yesterday by the Minister for Communications, Mr Sinclair, in the House of Representatives and afterwards. Will the newly foreshadowed and fourth review of the Australian broadcasting system to be conducted by the Fraser Government - according to the Minister, that review will be completed by February next year and will examine amongst other things the public interest provisions of the broadcasting legislation - be in any sense open to members of the public so that they can make submissions about important public interest questions or will it be a closed departmental review? Will it, amongst other things, embrace the question of newspaper ownership interlocking with broadcasting and television ownership?

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– I saw the statement made yesterday by Mr Sinclair in another place. It was a fairly detailed statement of the intention of the Government to carry out a certain examination but it did not contain any details of the procedures to be followed during the examination. I think that was the thrust of Senator Button’s question. I will refer the question to Mr Sinclair to obtain an answer which I will make available to Senator Button as soon as I can.

page 437

QUESTION

POLAND

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to Press reports that Russia is massing tanks and troops along the Polish border and the great risk that the might of Russia may crush the democratic rights and freedoms of the Polish people. Will the Australian Government take the lead in initiating in the United Nations the proposition that total economic sanctions be applied against Russia if any moves are taken by that country against the freedoms of the people of Poland?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLESome statements have been made on Poland. I have nothing to add to them. I will draw to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs the suggestion made by Senator Young and seek a response on the matter.

page 437

QUESTION

MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, who is representing the Prime Minister in this place, refers to a statement made in the House of Representatives on 6 June last year in which the present Minister for Communications acknowledged that several hundred thousand dollars misappropriated by G. M. Sinclair had been paid into the account of the Sinclair Pastoral Co. and that by a deed of arrangement dated 1 August 1979 the Minister agreed to repay $300,000 commencing on 1 November 1980. Will the Deputy Leader of the Government ask the Prime Minister whether public documents reveal that up to 1 November this year a family company of the Minister for Communications was the custodian and beneficiary of 300,000 misappropriated dollars and whether the Prime Minister approves of the use of misappropriated funds as working capital for private ministerial businesses? If the Prime Minister does not so approve, why did he reappoint Mr Sinclair to the Cabinet?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Prime Minister.

page 438

QUESTION

OIL COMPANY PRICING POLICIES

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs: Is the Government examining the issues raised by small independent retailers, especially in New South Wales, who claim that selective pricing policies of oil companies are driving some retailers into bankruptcy?

Senator MESSNER:
LP

– I am not aware of the matter that Senator Watson has raised but I undertake to refer it to the Minister, Mr Moore, and to obtain an early reply.

page 438

QUESTION

DISCIPLINING OF NAVY CHAPLAINS

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– The Attorney-General will recall several speeches and questions from Senator Chipp and me concerning a possibly unwitting infringement of the religious rights of two Royal Australian Naval Reserve chaplains after their participation in an ecumenical prayer meeting at Forrest Place in Perth, Western Australia. Has the Minister any further response to the matter before we rise for the Christmas recess?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have in fact given a good deal of consideration to the matters that Senator Tate raised in his questions. I have already answered the question addressed to me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by Senator Chipp in relation to this matter. My answers to Senator Tate are based upon the factual information which I gave to the Senate in answer to the question asked by Senator Chipp. Last week Senator Tate asked whether the commanding officer of HMAS Leeuwin acted in a way permitted by section 1 1 6 of the Constitution in relation to two Royal Australian Naval Reserve chaplains. For the reasons which I will give later in this answer it does not seem to me that any question arises under section 116 of the Constitution.

On Wednesday of this week Senator Tate asked a number of further questions in the course of making a statement by leave in relation to the answer which I gave to Senator Chipp. The first question was whether it was appropriate for the commanding officer to take action in relation to the alleged breach of a local government by-law. It does not seem to me that on this point there is any question of a restriction of religious freedom. What was involved was a question of the appropriateness of the chaplains engaging in a possibly illegal meeting; not an attempt to enforce the law or to restrict their profession of their religious faith. As I indicated to Senator Chipp on Wednesday, the point made by the commanding officer was that he did not expect chaplains to transgress laws. If there had been no allegation of illegality the matter would not have been raised.

The second question from Senator Tate was whether the action of the commanding officer may, possibly unwittingly, have created a situation infringing the expression of conscientiously held beliefs. As I have just indicated, the action was not directed at the fact that the meeting was a religious observance; it was taken because of the allegation of illegality. There was no formal reprimand or restriction on the duties of the chaplains. I conclude that in this matter too there was no abrogation of religious freedom.

The next issue is whether there was a denial of natural justice. As I conveyed to the Senate on Wednesday, my advice is that the commanding officer acted in good faith in discussing the matter. However, he expressed his dissatisfaction to the chaplains directly. As I have already indicated, no disciplinary action was taken. Questions of natural justice therefore do not seem to arise.

Finally, Senator Tate asked whether this matter should be referred to the Human Rights Bureau. In accordance with the terms of its directive, either an act or practice under a law of the Commonwealth can be referred to the Bureau for inquiry and report. As there is no suggestion in this case that there was other than a departure from normal procedures, the reference would have to be of the particular action by the commanding officer which has been the subject of the questions by Senator Chipp and Senator Tate. This might have been a suitable case for reference to the Bureau, but the reply I have conveyed to the Senate from the Minister for Defence, and my further reply today, appear to indicate that, taken in its full context and on the information currently available, there is no remaining issue requiring reference to the Bureau. There was no formal reprimand, deprivation of duties, or effective reduction in the scope of the chaplains to express their beliefs. Accordingly, and in the absence of other information or complaints, it appears that further action by way of reference to the Bureau is not required.

page 439

QUESTION

DEVELOPMENT OF AUSTRALIAN RESOURCES

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Why was Mount Isa Mines Ltd denied approval to develop Oakey Creek? What has this great Australian company to do to compete with foreign companies in developing Australian resources? Is the Minister aware of the record of Mount Isa Mines in Australia, an Australian managed, staffed and owned company, a record which no other mining company in Australia can match for service to and concern for the best interests of the Australian community? Why were not the same standards applied to the German Creek project? Are not the Foreign Investment Review Board rules arrant nonsense insofar as they have not prevented foreign companies acquiring major positions in the coal industry? In this regard, I instance Shell Oil which has no shares listed on the Australian stock market.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLESenator MacGibbon raises the matter of Oakey Creek. I have no information from the Treasurer on this matter nor am I able to comment on his behalf on the Foreign Investment Review Board. As far as Mount Isa Mines Ltd is concerned, 1 think it is well known to all Australians as a company which has had a unique contribution to make to the development of Australia. I can recall, as a member of a Senate committee, that wherever we visited mining centres throughout Australia, the people who were very often at significant levels of responsibility were people who had originally come from Mount Isa Mines Ltd. So the Company has had that unique responsibility in the development of this country and I think that would be accepted by all people in Australia who put their minds to that subject. I will seek information from the Treasurer for Senator MacGibbon on the other matters of standards applied and the relationship of the Foreign Investment Review Board.

page 439

QUESTION

ASIA DAIRY INDUSTRIES (HONG KONG) LTD

Senator McLAREN:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I remind him that on three occasions, 20, 2 1 and 26 August, I asked questions in this Parliament about the misuse of moneys by employees of Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong)

Ltd. One of the questions was: Has Mr Webster or Mr Pyle made restitution of the amount of $ 1 ,609 referred to in an answer given to me by the Minister? I received a letter from the Minister dated 7 October which stated:

The Australian Dairy Corporation has advised that no restitution of any of the $1,609 has been made by Mr Webster or Mr Pyle.

Has that restitution yet been made in view of the representations made to the Chairman of the Corporation by Mr Nixon, the Minister for Primary Industry?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– This is a matter on which I recall that there have been a number of questions and speeches. I think there is a Senate inquiry and a police inquiry. I will simply take the honourable senator’s question as being one on notice and seek a reply for him.

page 439

QUESTION

AVIATION SPIRIT

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, relates to the price of aviation spirit for light aircraft, which no doubt the Minister is aware costs considerably more than fuel for a car. In fact, it costs about 50c a litre. Is the Minister aware that due to this higher price of aviation spirit for light aircraft and consequently the cost of flying, many people who would otherwise choose flying as a career are being prohibited from doing so? Is the Minister aware that there is a drop in the number of people who are learning to fly? Will he discuss with the Minister for Transport some way of reducing the cost of light aircraft fuel so that flying training centres will be able to continue to train the pilots Australians will need in the years to come? This might help to stay in business some of the companies that fly people around this large country.

Senator MESSNER:
LP

– It is true that the price of aviation fuel over the last few years has risen quite substantially. As to the effects that has had on the industry generally, I am not particularly aware of the kinds of effects which Senator Townley has referred to, although in some areas it has restricted activity in general aviation. The best thing I can do for Senator Townley is to refer the matter to Mr Hunt and obtain an early reply for him.

page 439

QUESTION

APPOINTMENT OF PROFESSOR TANNOCK

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. I ask: In view of the number of protests now forthcoming as a result of the appointment of

Professor Tannock as head of the Schools Commission, will the Government reconsider his appointment and replace him by a person perceived to be more independent, even by the reappointment of Dr McKinnon?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The answer is no. The Government has given very great consideration to the question of the most suitable person for appointment to this most important job. The Government is satisfied that in Professor Tannock it will have a man not only of considerable standing and knowledge in the field of education, but also of a very high reputation. I believe that he will make a very great contribution in his position as Chairman of the Schools Commission.

page 440

QUESTION

METRIC CONVERSION BOARD

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– 1 ask the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology: Is it a fact that from 1 January next a Western Australian regulation, which has been introduced at the request of the Metric Conversion Board, will provide that it will be illegal to quote prices and other measures in imperial units in that State? Are other regulations being introduced on a similar basis in other States? Is it also a fact that Commonwealth regulations are now in force which make it illegal to import rulers and other measuring instruments which show both imperial and metric units and that, if attempted, the importer must pay for their destruction or re-export the items elsewhere? Will the Minister review whether it is really necessary to go to such lengths in regulation and restriction of freedom to impose this system of metrication on the Australian people?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– From time to time the Government has given consideration to the nature of regulations in regard to using imperial measurements in advertisements, sales and so forth. The question of how far one goes in this area is a very difficult one indeed. At the moment I am not aware of just what reconsideration the Minister may give to any Commonwealth laws or regulations in regard to the matter. I will refer the question to him and ask him to provide an early answer to the Senate.

page 440

QUESTION

FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW BOARD

Senator BUTTON:

– I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology to the recent annual report of the Foreign Investment Review Board which reveals a significant increase in foreign takeovers of Australian manufacturers of electricity generation and transmission equipment. I ask the Minister: In view of the fact that this industry is in the forefront of Australia’s development plans, and given the remarks made yesterday by the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Thomson, that the Government is ‘working on’ the problem of the entrepreneurial side of the technology issue, why is the Government allowing this industry to fall into foreign hands increasingly? Will it review the situation as quickly as possible?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– My attention has not been drawn to the comments made by the Foreign Investment Review Board in its report on this matter. I will refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Science and Technology and ask him to provide an early answer.

page 440

QUESTION

DISCOUNTED AIR FARES

Senator COLSTON:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport: Has it been necessary for the major airlines to break long term agreements made with sporting bodies due to directions from the Federal Minister for Transport? Will the Minister request the Minister for Transport to table correspondence between him or his Department and the airlines over the issue of discounted fares?

Senator MESSNER:
LP

– I think Senator Colston asked a similar question yesterday.

Senator Colston:

– No.

Senator MESSNER:

– I am sorry, I misunderstood the point the honourable senator was making. The question the honourable senator has raised today needs to be referred to the Minister for Transport for his early reply.

page 440

QUESTION

INVALID PENSIONS

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Social Security whether he is aware of a current project in the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs whereby disabled people are classified as being immediately employable, appropriate for retraining, or suitable for another benefit such as an invalid pension, and that people in the latter classification are to be referred to the Department of Social Security for that pension. Is the Minister aware that amongst the criteria used to judge these people is the availability of work in the area? If so, what consultation has occurred between the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs and the Department of Social Security in this case, as the Department of Social Security has stated repeatedly that availability of work in the area is irrelevant when judging people for an invalid pension?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have no direct knowledge of the matters raised by the honourable senator. The relevance of availability of work in determining whether or not somebody is entitled to an invalid pension is based on a legal interpretation of the relevant legislation. Whether there are operating guidelines in other departments which are concerned with different aspects of administration, and in particular the direct placement of people in employment, is a matter which is not known to me. I will make inquiries and give the honourable senator a considered reply when I have the full facts.

page 441

QUESTION

SAUDI ARABIA

Senator KNIGHT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources and refers to reports that Australia might be involved in a major hospital project in Saudi Arabia, apparently in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh. 1 ask the Minister whether these reports are accurate. If so, what is the nature of Australia’s involvement? For example, will it be governmental or private? Is it correct that such a project could employ hundreds of Australians? If so, what would their roles be and with what status would they be employed in Saudi Arabia? Is this matter currently being negotiated with the Saudi authorities? If so, what stage of negotiations has been reached?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have been informed that the reports referred to by Senator Knight are accurate in some respects but not in others. For example, the possible fees referred to are not correct. They are estimated to amount to $120m per annum and not the $300m per annum mentioned. The project could employ some 1 ,500 Australians. These would be hospital administrators, doctors, nurses and ancillary staff. The Australian involvement would be a commercial contract with a private body but with a government-to-government agreement to facilitate the project. The matter has been the subject of discussion with the Saudi Arabian authorities, who have had discussions with other countries as well. It is expected that the Saudi Government will shortly come to a decision as to which country it will ask to undertake the project.

page 441

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FLAG

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. The Minister has recently greatly increased the range and number of people and organisations which may be given an Australian flag. Can the Minister advise where these Australian flags are made? Are they made of Australian material? Is it true that some are imported from Taiwan?

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– Clearly in order to answer the specific question raised by the honourable senator I will need to refer it to the Minister for Administrative Services. I will so do, and pass on the answer.

page 441

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

Senator WATSON:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Has the Aboriginal Development Commission formulated guidelines to apply to applicants seeking loans from the Commission?

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– Honourable senators will know that the Aboriginal Development Commission has been only recently formed and that it is still developing its administrative practices. I think honourable senators will recall that the second reading speech in this place for the Aboriginal Development Commission Bill was made by Senator Bonner. I have talked to the Commission recently about the development of guidelines. My understanding is that it has already developed some of the guidelines it requires and it is still in the process of extending and expanding all its administrative procedures, including guidelines.

page 441

QUESTION

DOCUMENTS ON AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE AND FOREIGN POLICY 1968-1975

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I recall for the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs that earlier this week I asked the Attorney-General what interests the Government served in seeking to ban the book Documents on Australian Defence and Foreign Policy 1968-1975. I further asked whether any pressure was brought to bear by the Indonesian Government or authorities to prevent publication of the book. The Attorney-General said he would refer that part of the question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I now ask: Has the matter been referred to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and what is the answer?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

I feel sure that the content of Senator Georges’ question would have been referred to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the normal way, but I have no information from him in response to it. I will check with him and see what response he is able to make on the matter.

Senator GEORGES:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister accept that the allegation is serious and that we should receive an answer to the question before the parliamentary recess? Can we have an assurance that we will receive an answer to that question today?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

– 1 understand the interest of Senator Georges in the matter. I will make every endeavour to have some response from the Minister for Foreign Affairs as soon as possible.

page 442

QUESTION

INDUSTRY PROTECTION

Senator THOMAS:

– I draw to the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs an editorial in today’s Australian which discusses levels of protection given to Australian industry, particularly to the car manufacturing industry. Will the Minister draw the editorial to the attention of the Minister he represents? Will he advise the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs that the editorial reinforces almost all the published official advice the Government receives on the subject of protection?

Senator MESSNER:
LP

– I have not seen that editorial, but I will undertake to draw it to the attention of the Minister. I am not sure whether it refers to the recent decision with regard to the motor vehicle industry. As I see Senator Thomas nodding his head, I might add that I believe that decision was a most important one for the Government and for Australia in the sense that the motor vehicle plan which is in force until 1984 requires a period of stability. Consequently I believe that decision was taken in the interests of the people as a whole.

page 442

QUESTION

ELECTRONIC CHECK-OUT SYSTEMS

Senator HARRADINE:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, refers to the establishment by a recent meeting of Commonwealth and State consumer affairs Ministers of a five-member committee to investigate the problems and benefits of the introduction of electronic check-out systems. Is the Minister aware that the terms of reference narrow the investigation to the effects on consumers of the introduction of the electronic checkout systems? Does the Minister not agree that the effects of the universal product code number technology would be quite vast on employment and employment opportunities in the retail industry? Will the Government consider broadening the terms of reference of that committee to include those considerations?

Senator MESSNER:
LP

– I am not aware of the committee to which Senator Harradine has referred. Consequently, I am unable to comment on whether it is within the Commonwealth’s power to influence a broadening of the terms of reference of that inquiry. I shall refer the matter to the Minister and obtain a reply for Senator Harradine.

page 442

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOLD COINS

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of the demand shown by people for the $200 gold coin, does the Government now realise that many people wish to save coins? Will the Government admit that lower value coins - say, $2 and $5 pieces - could be useful in the community and something out of which the Government could make a profit by selling proof coins in roughly the same way as the $200 gold coin was sold? Has the Government recently had a look at the whole matter of Australian coins with a view to reducing their size to something that is more appropriate to this day and age?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

There has been sustained interest in the gold coin that has been produced. To some extent the interest in that coin has been surprising. The matters raised by Senator Townley with regard to lower value coins and the size of the coins which we use would need to be referred by me to the Treasurer for some response from him. I am sure that he would be interested in what has been said by Senator Townley in regard to the production for collection of a wider range of coins than is presently available.

page 442

QUESTION

PRODUCT RECALLS

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs seen the rather trenchant criticism by Mr Geschke, the Director of the Consumer Affairs Bureau in Victoria, about the degree of product recalls and the gross inconvenience that is caused to many consumers by the recall of products which are considered to have defects or whose quality is not up to standard? Has the Commonwealth Department of Business and Consumer Affairs given any consideration, in looking at the question of the protection of the interests of consumers, to requiring some form of compensation to be paid for the inconvenience and problems caused, having regard to the quite marked increase in the degree of quality deterioration and product recalls in recent years?

Senator MESSNER:
LP

– I think quite a number of people have been concerned for a long time about the apparent increase in recalls, particularly in the motor vehicle industry. Whether that is a correct observation is something of which I am not aware at this stage; nor am I aware of any moves that the Department may have undertaken in this area. I will undertake to refer the matter to the Minister and obtain a reply for Senator Gietzelt.

page 443

QUESTION

TACTICAL FIGHTER FORCE PROGRAM

Senator MacGIBBON:

– Does the Minister representing the Minister for Defence not agree that the statement made yesterday by Mr Killen that the decision on the new tactical fighter had been deferred - I have not seen the details of this as yesterday’s House of Representatives Hansard is not yet available - will inevitably lead to a further slippage of the tactical fighter force program? Is the Government prepared to buy any late mark Phantom aircraft as a stopgap measure for the next eight years?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will be tabling the full statement by the Minister for Defence in relation to this matter at the appropriate time this morning. As to the specific matter that Senator MacGibbon has raised, 1 will refer it to the Minister for Defence and ask him to give it consideration.

page 443

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator GRIMES:

– What information does the Attorney-General have on those people who were arrested in Athens by the Greek Government and charged with offences against the Australian Social Services Act? Now that conspiracy charges have been dropped in Sydney against all but 21 people presently in court and all charges have been dropped against 80 others, has this information been passed on to the Greek Government, and has legal advice been forwarded at the same time on how judgments were made, what kind of cases were dropped and which cases were continued?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Some information was obtained quite recently from the Greek Government in regard to this matter. 1 do not have the detailed information with me at the moment. I will write to Senator Grimes and provide him with this information as soon as it can be put together. Several pieces of information have been obtained as a result of representations that have been made and they need to be put together in a full answer. I shall have that done as soon as possible.

As to the other aspects of the question, I am not sure whether that information has yet been conveyed to the Greek authorities. I will inquire from my department as to what has occurred there. But certainly I agree that that is information which ought to be conveyed to them. However, I think from the information that has come from the

Greek authorities, there has not been any particular urgency in conveying that information to them.

page 443

QUESTION

MEDICAL PROFESSION: PRIVATE HOSPITALS

Senator BUTTON:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to the comment in the recently published report of the Victorian Director of Consumer Affairs, Mr Geschke, that the practice which apparently quite frequently exists in the medical profession of doctors referring patients to hospitals which they themselves own or in which they have substantial shareholdings is a highly undesirable one which in the view of the Director would not be tolerated in any other profession. Has the Government, in its capacity of being responsible for the administration of health insurance legislation, any views on this matter and, if it has no views at present, will it give consideration to this matter?

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– A question on this subject was addressed to me yesterday by another honourable senator and I have already referred this matter to my colleague for detailed reply. From my own experience as a doctor, it is infrequent for doctors to have an interest in hospitals as well as in their practice. I am not denying that this can occur from time to time. As I have said, the substance of the question has already been referred to my colleague for response. I will make sure that Senator Button is also provided with a copy of the answer when it finally comes to hand.

page 443

QUESTION

DISCOUNTED AIR FARES

Senator MESSNER:
LP

– Yesterday Senator Colston asked me a question without notice about allegations that the Minister for Transport had personally intervened to cancel an agreement to grant discount air fares to delegates to a conference of the Australian Institute of Public Administration. The Minister for Transport has provided me with an answer.

The Minister wishes to make it clear that he did not personally intervene as alleged. On 27 August he informed the House of Representatives as to the background of the discriminatory discount air fare problem which arose following a complaint lodged by one of the airlines, objecting to the proliferation of discriminatory discounting. He was warned that unless action was taken, a discount war would occur. He was concerned at such a prospect because it necessarily would affect core fares. Economy, first class and standard fare passengers would bear the costs of such an action.

These passengers would subsidise the passengers receiving discounts.

The Minister discussed the matter with both airlines on 6 July and asked them to consult and report back to his Department. Unfortunately, both airlines chose to cancel all concessional arrangements forthwith and did not report as requested. Naturally, the Minister expressed the Government’s concern at the sudden withdrawal and, as a result, both airlines agreed to provide an interim measure which included a 1 5 per cent discount for sporting and charitable organisations as well as continuation of the 10 per cent discount for common-interest groups. In view of the widespread publicity generated and in an effort to reach an equitable long term solution, the Minister referred the whole issue to the independent inquiry into domestic air fares which is due to report by the end of January. The airlines have agreed to maintain these interim arrangements until the Government has had an opportunity to consider the report of that inquiry.

page 444

QUESTION

WORLD HERITAGE LIST: SOUTH-WEST TASMANIA

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– Yesterday Senator Mason directed to me a question asking whether the Government will recommend that the south-west corner of Tasmania be nominated for the World Heritage List. I undertook to obtain information. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has advised me that the Commonwealth Government has approached the Tasmanian Government with the suggestion that south-west Tasmania be considered for possible nomination for the World Heritage List. So the answer to that part of the honourable senator’s question is yes. I am advised that the Commonwealth Government is still awaiting a formal response from Tasmania to that suggestion.

page 444

QUESTION

TRANBY ABORIGINAL COLLEGE

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– On 3 December Senator Keeffe asked me a question concerning the funding of Tranby, the co-operative college for Aborigines. I have been able to obtain some information. On 7 November representatives from the Tranby co-operative visited the eastern regional office of my Department and presented a submission for funding the program of the cooperative. They were seeking approximately $145,000. They were advised at that time that funds were unlikely to be available this year as the submission was not received until after the year’s funding had been programmed. Since 1968-69 the co-operative and its predecessors have received grants from my Department totalling $37,859. A request for departmental funding for major capital works by the co-operative was declined in 1978-79.

Senator Georges:

– That was a big one.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I am trying to supply the information requested by Senator Keeffe. Major renovations funded from other sources have since been carried by the cooperative. Until this recent submission the cooperative has funded its activities from private sources. Assistance with courses has been provided by the Commonwealth Department of Education and the New South Wales Department of Technical and Further Education. Advice on the present submission has been sought from these departments. When this advice has been examined I shall be in a position to consider whether departmental funding will be able to be approved in the light of fund availability and competing priorities. The work of the co-operative is held in high esteem. Its ability to be self-sufficient financially has provided it with a level of independence of operation which is extremely praiseworthy. I am aware that changing circumstances are requiring the co-operative to approach government and to seek government assistance. The Senate may be assured that the request will be fully and sympathetically examined.

page 444

MCDONALD’S FAMILY RESTAURANTS

Senator PETER BAUME:
LP

– I have had quite a bit of inquiry about the sugar content of Big Mac Buns. There is some uncertainty about the actual sugar content. We have examined all the figures. I am able to advise honourable senators that Big Mac buns are sweet buns, as I said in my answer several days ago. The actual figures on sugar content can be presented in two different ways: The first way can be grams of sugar per 100 grams of bun; the second figure is based on the fact that the bun actually weighs 72 grams. So the amount of sugar per bun is rather less than the amount of sugar per 100 grams of bun. The figures can be different also per gram of dry weight or per gram of edible bun. When all those factors are taken into account, the fact remains that the buns are made to an American recipe which is for a sweeter bun than that normally eaten in this country.

page 444

PETITIONS

Goats’ Milk Formulae

Senator RYAN:

– by leave - I present two petitions from 26 and 25 citizens of Australia respectively, as follows:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition or the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth its objection to the removal from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme of all gouts 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.

Petitions received and first petition read.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

Senator RYAN:

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

page 445

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I seek leave to make a personal explanation concerning a matter which arose at Question Time earlier this week.

Leave granted.

Senator GEORGES:

– Earlier this week I asked a question of Senator Peter Baume, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, concerning legal harassment by McDonald’s of nutritionists and others. My question followed one by Senator Missen and was asked because I considered the matter that he raised was important. I do not believe this over-sweet bun to be a joke. It is addictive and creates in children habits which can lead to serious consequences later in life. For that reason I took up the matter and questioned the tactics of McDonald’s. To my astonishment, I received an anonymous telephone call chiding me about the question and suggesting that it was not properly based. For that reason, I intend to put in the record the basis upon which I asked the question.

I refer the Senate to the program Countrywide of 17 October 1980, which I viewed. I have a transcript of the program and it will be available in the Parliamentary Library for those who are more interested. I will not refer to it in detail, but the transcript is headed ‘Fast Food Industry: Criticisms Of Poor Nutrition And Employment Policies But A Bonanza For The Farmers Involved’. The program involved an interview between Martyn Goddard and several people, including Peter Richie, Managing Director of McDonald’s. In part of the exchange Martyn Goddard said:

But despite the ease with which Australia has taken to the McDonald’s way of doing things, their acceptance here has not been simple. There have been long public controversies over the firm’s employment policy. Some unions claim there’s a preponderance of very young people behind the counters who provide cheap non-union labour to the detriment of the workforce at large.

The next part concerns my explanation:

And there has been a debate among nutritionists and others over the food value of the product itself. Peter Richie dismisses most of his opponents’ arguments that he’s philosophical about the press he’s received.

Peter Richie then responded:

Some of it’s been terrible and I accept that and expect it and I understand it to an extent. I don’t understand it in many cases because I think that Australians are conditioned to hate multinationals.

Martyn Goddard intervened:

There have been two specific areas covered haven’t there. One is nutrition and the other one is your employment policy employing a lot of young people.

I come to the emphasis of the matter. Peter Richie said:

Right yes. Let me just spend a minute talking about both of those things. Unfortunately about nutrition I have taken some aggressive action–

I repeat ‘aggressive action’ -

Against some people who have levelled criticism at me on the nutrition area, and for that reason 1 can’t get into it too deeply . . . but I am suing them for defamation. For saying that our food contains preservatives etc. and isn’t nutritious and I’m going to make them stand up and put their money where their mouth is so to speak.

The firm is entitled to do that, but when it did it on a basis which can be described as legal harassment I thought it was necessary to intervene in this place where I am protected when I make such comments, understanding, of course, that others who make similar comments outside could face legal harassment, from a very powerful corporation.

Nutritionists, newspapers, the media and others in this country should be free to make comments about the nutritional values of foods or commodities which are produced by anyone without having to face lengthy legal proceedings in the courts. Senator Evans raised the question of legal harrassment with regard to John Sinclair, Fraser Island and Murphyores Incorporated Pty Ltd. He gave the impression that he considered it a very important question for the Senate to consider whether such legal harassment ought to be permitted. As I understand the question that Senator Evans asked concerning John Sinclair, there may be some redress in that instance. I hope the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) takes it up. I take up now with the Attorney-General the need to see whether there is any protection from harassment by a major multinational against the small and not so strong.

page 446

PRESENTATION OF PAPERS

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I present papers in accordance with the list that has been circulated to honourable senators. I seek leave to incorporate the list in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The list of papers tabled read as follows -

  1. Academic Salaries Tribunal - Interim Salary ReviewDetermination and Reports - November 1980. Pursuant to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.
  2. Department of Transport - Guidelines for Driver Licensing and Driver improvement Programs in Australia.
  3. Text of a Statement by the Minister for Defence.
  4. Text of a Statement by the Minister for Employment and

Youth Affairs__ Employment in Major Development projects.

  1. Text of a Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs - on Disarmament.
  2. Text of a Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs - on Zimbabwe.
  3. Text of a Statement by the Minister of Housing and Construction. - on 43rd General Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.

page 446

ACADEMIC SALARIES TRIBUNAL

Report

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– by leave - I think an important aspect which comes out of this report is that the Chairman of the Tribunal, Mr Justice Ludeke, has put his finger on an obvious fact. Many honourable senators will have received correspondence from different academic groups within the tertiary institutions throughout Australia. The fact that His Honour has seen fit to make some reference to this I think ought to be given grave consideration by the Government. His

Honour admitted that the work load of the academic staff, as indicated on page 1 2 of the report, has risen. Consequently, there is a need for some consideration to be given to this fact. We are aware that from time to time individual trade unions put work value cases before the respective industrial tribunals. There should be some recognition of the increasing work load which has been found to exist now in tertiary educational institutions.

One cannot help noting that in the last year or two there has been a crescendo of criticism about the lack of educational development of many of the young people in our country. Many Government spokesmen, as well as employer organisations, have suggested that there is something wrong with the education system. I think it is wrong to put the blame on the system itself because clearly we have not worked out what we require from our educational institutions. Certainly, if this process is to persist there ought to be some proper examination, particularly in the area of academic salaries, of the extra responsibilities placed upon people working in the relevant areas. The report recommends the raising of all salaries in line with wage indexation. I assume that the Government will accept that recommendation. But I believe the report does not take on board the extra responsibilities existing now in so many of the important areas in our tertiary institutions.

The recommendation of a 4 per cent increase for all full time and part time staff of course would only bring their salaries into line with national wage variations. I think the time has probably arrived for the Parliament to give a lot more consideration to what is being said by many vocal people in our community and in this place about what they consider to be the deficiencies in education generally. Criticism of academic personnel perhaps cannot be put in the same category as some of the more pointed criticisms we have heard about the lack of numeracy and other things concerning the younger members of our community. Nevertheless, it seems that the level of academic salaries in tertiary institutions is being given as the reason for the lack of skills at various other levels within the whole education area. I think the time has arrived for the Parliament to give a little more consideration to these issues than it has in the past.

page 446

QUESTION

DEFENCE- MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– by leave - 1 move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

Because of the very effective response which was given yesterday in the other place by the Opposition spokesman on defence, Mr Scholes, and because of the limitations of time that are upon us today, the response in this chamber to the statement of the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) will be rather more brief than might otherwise have been the case, and certainly more brief than what is deserved given the scandalously inadequate character of the statement. Some response nonetheless must be made.

The statement before us and the general community reaction to it, for that matter, is another fascinating demonstration of that built-in double standard which seems to operate in the Australian political culture. If it had been an Australian Labor Party Defence Minister standing in his place, mouthing the same kind of empty posturing inanities that were mouthed by the Liberal Government Minister for Defence yesterday, while our defence capability was steadily and visibly eroding beneath him, we would have been pilloried in every newspaper, in every corner of this land. But because it is a Liberal Government and a conservative government the only reaction tends to be: ‘Poor old Jim is doing his best. Circumstances are difficult. Just be patient, we will have the right result in the end’. What we have in practice is a Defence Minister in this Government who is presiding over what can only be described as a shambles in our defence system.

Senator Walters:

– Are you an expert in that field too?

Senator EVANS:

– What a pathetic figure these days Senator Walters’ Defence Minister is. He is laboured in wit and negligible in substance. Earlier this year he was obliged to acknowledge that the 1976 rolling five-year defence plan was now lagging some S 1 ,500m behind schedule with a re-equipment part of that program being hopelessly behind any realistic assessment of the defence needs of this country. At the time of the socalled Afghanistan crisis we had a situation resulting from Budget cut-backs on current account where ships could not sail, aircraft not fly and tanks could not manoeuvre for want of fuel. We had guns that could not fire for want of ammunition and submarines that could not leave port for want of crew.

The Budget in August of this year did do something significant to raise the level of defence expenditure and certainly has done something to resolve those problems on current account. Because of the enormous lead and lag times that are involved in major equipment procurement we do have a situation in terms of our overall defence program that is no better than the situation that I have identified as it stood at the beginning of this year. Now we have as the centrepiece of this statement put down in the other chamber yesterday, the fact that the long-awaited announcement on the choice of the 75 plane tactical fighter force is not to be made now as was long promised but is to be postponed indefinitely, or at least until the middle of next year and possibly for some unspecified time beyond that.

The Minister in his statement gives us some reasons that do have an appearance of superficial plausibility. We are told that there were fundamental technical problems that just had not been resolved with respect to these planes, making it irresponsible for us to engage in an open-ended purchase arrangement at this time. In respect of the FI 6, it was a problem with its all-weather capability. In respect of the FI 8 it was a rather more fundamental set of aerodynamic problems which had not been resolved. Maybe there are problems out of the ordinary development run involved in these aircraft. But they do not seem to be the kinds of problems which have deterred Canada, for one, from entering into its purchase commitment for the FI 8. Certainly they are not the kinds of problems which have deterred many other countries with comparable, if not exactly the same defence requirements as our own from engaging in the purchase of the FI 6. Many answers have not been given. In fact, they have not been addressed at all in this statement. Some of them are really of quite fundamental importance. In the first place if these development problems which are now apparent are still as substantial as we are told they are why did the Government make its decision over a year ago to reduce the contenders fom five planes to just these two? We were assured at that time that one or the other of the two planes would undoubtedly serve Australia’s defence needs. If that is not so now and if it proves not to be so we are back at least five years in our defence planning and we are in a position which is indistinguishable from that which confronted the country under the Menzies regime in 1 941 .

The second question not addressed in the statement is: What will we do if, by the middle of 1981 or some later time next year, it does prove to be the case that neither of these fighters are adequate? Will alternative aircraft still be available? Can we go back to one or the other of those original five in the absence of the acceptability of the remaining two or is this statement from the Minister merely some kind of prelude, some softening up, to the abandonment of the TFF program altogether? Are we - to employ some good old

Tory rhetoric of the kind which ought to be familiar to Senator Durack and certainly is familiar to Mr Killen who engages in it all the time - to be left naked and defenceless in terms of our air cover as a result of the incapacity of the Government to get its planning act together?

Senator Lewis:

– Don’t you agree that if the Government had made a decision Senator Walsh would have been in here kicking our heads for choosing one of the two aircraft before a final anlaysis had been made?

Senator Button:

– Your head invites kicking, Senator. You have a very suitable head.

Senator EVANS:

– As my leader says, the bucolic Senator Lewis has exactly the kind of head that invites kicking on these occasions. There will be a great temptation for Senator Walsh to do just that.

The third question, and this is really the central question that is not addressed at all in this statement, relates to the final implications for this country of the deferral decision that has been made and recorded in the statement. What are the kinds of cost escalations that we will be confronted with and which we can expect with the further delay that is involved in the purchase, let us assume, of one or other of those two aircraft? More fundamentally still, can we afford both a high budget aircraft of the kind that is contemplated here and, together with that, the kind of carrier replacement that was so cavalierly announced as being within the Government’s planning before the last election, a carrier replacement with an all up cost, taking its associated aircraft into account, of something approaching $ 1 ,000m?

How will we be able to afford any TFF aircraft bearing in mind the cost escalation that will be associated with them because of further time delays and given that the Navy has indicated that it is seeking the purchase of a number of Lynx 3 helicopters each of which has a paid up cost at the moment of around $25m and, when one takes into account everything that needs to come with them, a more realistic total figure of over $32m which is more than is contemplated for the aircraft in the TFF? We are contemplating purchases not just for the aircraft carrier but for the FGG force which is also within the range of the Government’s contemplation. We have pieces lying around all over the board, all of them amounting to phenomenal costs and yet no indication has been given in this statement as to how all those various bits and pieces will fit together. Will these various kinds of purchases be compatible with each other in terms of the financial capacity of the country at this time and within the foreseeable future? These issues have not been addressed in the statement, and they are of fundamental importance.

The fourth question that is utterly unanswered in this statement - it must arise by virtue of it - relates to the implications of this deferral decision for Australia’s credibility and reputation as a defence equipment purchaser. Already there have been Press reports in the last few days to the effect that the United States suppliers are saying that Australia simply cannot be relied upon any longer in this area. Given that the confidence factor is as important in the defence equipment market as in any other, how much credibility will Australia have if it continues to fiddle and fuss around in the fashion indicated by the whole course of the Minister’s actions with respect to the TFF and accentuated here today? Clearly, a final question is raised by this statement. It is true that it is not strictly within the sphere of ministerial authority and certainly not the ministerial competence of the Minister for Defence. I refer to the question of the implications of this statement for the Australian defence industry which was contemplating having a massive role on an offset basis or on a contribution basis in the construction of these aircraft and the business flowing from that. Once again, Australian defence industry is left puzzled, anguished and lamenting by this Government’s inability to get its act together.

The basic point I wish to make is that the statement that was put down yesterday by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Street) and tabled today in the Senate is a highly simplistic document, lt just does not reflect the kind of complexity and substance that is necessary in any proper, sensible and reasonable contribution to the complex defence debate in this country. It utterly fails to come to grips with the fundamental problems that have been evident for a very long time in Australia’s defence planning and, more particularly, Australia’s defence funding. It is not good enough to be fast and loose, and jokey and simpleminded about these matters in the way that the present Minister is. It is not good enough for the Parliament and the nation to be treated in the kind of cavalier fashion that is involved in a statement of this kind. The Government and the Minister cannot put off much longer the occasion for a major systematic parliamentary debate or analysis of the whole direction of Australia’s defence program, priorities, planning and expenditure. The Opposition certainly will be pressing for such a debate to be held early in the new year. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 449

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN DELEGATION TO THE COMMITTEE ON DISARMAMENT

Senator BUTTON:
Leader of the Opposition · Victoria

– by leave - I move:

The statement handed down yesterday in the House of Representatives by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Street) relates to the work of the Committee on Disarmament and, particularly, to the meetings of that Committee which have been held in Geneva. The Opposition generally welcomes the statement and hopes that the work of and the participation in that Committee will continue. I wish to make only two comments about the statement at this stage. Firstly, it is sad to note that the response to the report makes no reference to the delay in the implementation of the second strategic arms limitations talks. One would have thought that that would have been a matter which the Government might have seen fit to advert to in the context of any response on the question of disarmament. The second comment I wish to make is that I consider the last page of the response, which deals with the Government’s nuclear safeguards policy, to be a quite gratuitous and, in a sense, irrelevant response to the work of the Committee on Disarmament.

The document states that the Government’s policy on nuclear safeguards is a positive policy to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but in the last few months we have seen a continued watering down of the Government’s attitude to safeguards in relation to nuclear proliferation. The Government’s response in this document argues that Australia is offering a tangible reward, namely, access to Australian uranium, for those countries prepared to renounce nuclear weapons by becoming parties to the treaty. I find that incredibly naive as a serious statement of this Government’s attitude to questions of disarmament. It is making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Really that is what the Government is seeking to do in this statement - to cast a very favourable light on what has, in fact, been a greatly watered down policy on nuclear safeguards in the context of a paper responding to a committee concerned with the very serious issues of disarmament. It is a matter of great regret that the Government sought to use this document to justify a policy which really has no relevance to the important question of disarmament and to make a statement which, as I say, is really incredibly naive in the international context and in the context of the work of the Committee on Disarmament. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 449

TEXT OF A STATEMENT ON ZIMBABWE BY THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Senator BUTTON:
Leader of the Opposition · Victoria

– by leave - I move:

The statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Street) is a response by the Government to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in relation to Zimbabwe. I do not wish to say much at all about this statement because the matter has already been fully dealt with in the House of Representatives. In essence the Committee considered a number of issues relating to Zimbabwe but particularly issues relating to refugees and our immigration laws in relation to the accommodation of refugees. The Committee made a number of recommendations on those matters which have basically been accepted by the Government. In the House of Representatives the work of the Committee was very highly praised by representatives of all parties and, indeed, the Government was praised for its constructive response to the work of the Committee. Accordingly, I seek to add nothing to those comments in the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks when the matter may be further considered next year.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 449

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Report: Government Response

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– by leave - I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 449

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– I bring up the first report of the Standing Committee on Publications.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 449

QUESTION

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Report: Government Response

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– I think all honourable senators will agree that the Joint Statutory Committee on Public Works does a very fine job in maintaining some control over the expenditures on construction activities of the Government. Mr McVeigh, the new Minister for Housing and Construction, referred to one or two matters in his comments upon the report. After all, the Joint Committee on Public Works has undertaken a fairly extensive review of the housing and construction activities of the Government. The Opposition felt it was important to make some brief comments upon the response. The Minister in his brief remarks has perhaps not sufficiently taken on board the rather caustic views that have been expressed by the Committee. I refer to the unanimity that obviously exists on the Committee.

I do not think that the Senate can just accept the report in a rather cursory manner without making some comments upon it. The Committee refers to the need for a full cost benefit analysis of all projects to be developed under the authority of the Government. It refers particularly to the Brisbane Airport redevelopment project and the famous - perhaps I should say infamous - proposal to build the Australian Defence Force Academy. Consequently, the Minister’s comments that the Government agrees with some suggestions of the Committee are rather practicable from his point of view but I think impracticable from the point of view of the role of the Parliament as a body reviewing the work of the Executive. The Minister stated:

Nonetheless, the Government agrees that, wherever practicable, information on costs and benefits should be made available to the Committee.

I think it has to be said that a degree of controversy and concern has been expressed by many members of parliament of all shades of opinion, as well as by people outside the Parliament, about the Government’s proposals to develop the Australian Defence Force Academy. It is rather difficult to understand why the Minister is somewhat reluctant to apply the principle to which the Committee refers in relation to particular projects, particularly the Defence Force Academy. The Minister’s statement reads:

The Committee’s objective is to minimise the costs incurred by the Department of Housing and Construction on detailed studies of proposed works before the need for such works had been considered by the Parliament.

The Minister has suggested that the cost involved in carrying out the cost benefit study would be a militating factor against carrying out such a study in respect of some projects. I think that the

Government is belittling the work of the Committee. Certainly, it is not appreciating the views of the Committee. After all, the Committee has established what it considers to be effective guidelines to provide for a cost benefit analysis to take place in relation to all major projects. Nobody, surely, will disagree with the view that the construction of the Academy in Canberra is a major project. The Opposition finds it difficult to understand why the Minister is rather reluctant to say that there ought to be a cost benefit analysis in respect of all of these projects, particularly, as I have said, relating to the Defence Force Academy. The Academy has been an issue of considerable controversy. It is a project of considerable cost and about which strong views have been expressed throughout the Australian community. The Opposition does not find it satisfactory that the Minister should say:

Nonetheless, the suggestion by the Committee has been noted and should there be special circumstances in relation to a particular project . . . consideration will be given to the Committee’s suggestion.

I think the Parliament - the Senate and the House of Representatives - should endorse what the Committee seeks to do, that is, to subject all projects of a considerable size to a cost benefit analysis. If the Committee is to fulfil its proper role as a check upon Executive Government, the guidelines it has suggested should be accepted by the Government. It is clear that the Minister is not prepared to do that but he is prepared to say: Yes, you are a good Committee. Yes, the Committee has established certain guidelines. Yes, the Committee is exercising a useful function’. But when it comes to pet projects that have been decided upon by the Executive Government, the Government wants to exercise the power of discretion. I do not think that is good enough.

It is a committee which operates in a bipartisan way and which takes its obligations very seriously. It has looked at the overall problems of the construction and the costs involved and it has established a process which it believes ought to be adopted in all circumstances unless strong and powerful reasons are advanced by the government of the day that those sorts of guidelines should not be adopted. After all, we are in a period when the Government has said that it wants to cut back on wasteful expenditure and its wants to streamline and cut down on government spending. If the Government is sincere in that, why would it not take into consideration and give more relevance to the views of this all party committee? If in fact the Government has nothing to hide, one would have thought that the Minister would have said: ‘Yes, the guidelines are satisfactory. Yes, the Committee is fulfilling a useful role. Yes, on all occasions the Government will carry out the essential cost-benefit and analysis’.

page 451

TRANSFER OF COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES

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

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 451

HOMELESS YOUTH

Motion (by Senator Knight for Senator Walters) - by leave - agreed to:

That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Welfare: The causes of, the problems associated with and the effect on Australian society of, homeless youth, including -

the availability of suitable emergency and long-term accommodation and the factors affecting access by youth to such accommodation;

the availability of and the need for complementary services and other community support;

the appropriate responsibilities of governments at all levels in the provision of services to this group; and

the role and responsibilities of the family in supporting young people.

page 451

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

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 451

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

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

page 451

JOINT COMMITTEES

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that pursuant to resolutions agreed to by both Houses I have received letters from the Government and Opposition Whips in the House of Representatives, nominating members of the House of Representatives to serve on joint committees as follows:

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr Bradfield, Mr Dean, Mr Dobie, Mr Fry, Mr Hicks and Mrs Kelly.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE NEW PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Mr Chapman, Mr Giles, Mr Keating, Mrs Kelly, Mr Lloyd and Mr Scholes.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Mr Beazley, Mr Carlton, Mr Holding, Mr Jacobi, Mr Jull, Dr Klugman, Mr Dobie, Mr Falconer, Mr Fry, Mr Katter, Mr Lusher, Mr McLean, Mr Morrison and MrShipton.

page 451

BARLEY RESEARCH 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.

First Readings

Motion (by Senator Durack) proposed:

That the Bills be now read a first time.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– I take advantage of the first reading stage of the Barley Research Bill 1980 and the Barley Research Levy Bill 1980, which are taxation Bills, to mention some matters which are not related to the Bills but to the Australian Telecommunications Commission. This morning I wish to make a plea for the introduction of an improved system of billing for Australian telephone subscribers. Over the past 12 months I have noticed an increasing number of complaints coming into my office about telephone accounts. I have spoken with some of my colleagues who have offices in the same capital city as I and they have found that they have had an increased number of complaints just as I have. These complaints are usually to the effect that the bill is far in excess of the previous one.

Many of the people who have contacted me have kept detailed records of their telephone calls and they know that the bills which have been sent to them are simply unreasonable. Whenever I have taken up the matter with Telecom Australia the invariable response that I have received is that the meter has been checked and no fault has been found. I do not blame the officers of Telecom in any way for this. Because of the existing policy of Telecom there is not much else they can do. They have their job to do and that is all that they can report to me. This is not of much use, however, to the telephone subscriber. The telephone subscriber is at the mercy of Telecom. All that Telecom says is: ‘This is the account. No fault has been found. You either pay up or you lose your telephone’. Many people do pay up but under protest. Some people do not pay up and they lose their telephone.

In August of this year I was contacted by a Mr Nichols of Toowoomba. He demonstrated to me how in his case this sort of situation had got out of hand. I mention Mr Nichols not because his case is atypical - in fact, it is typical of many of the cases that have been brought to my attention - but I mention it because he has received a tremendous amount of publicity in the Toowoomba area. Some of his comments went beyond the State. He has received letters from many areas throughout Australia. Basically, Mr Nichols’ case was this: When he received his first excessive account he initially refused to pay it. He pointed out that the account covered a period in which there was an industrial dispute within Telecom and also when he was on holidays. He could not believe that the amount he was required to pay was reasonable. After some time he paid because he did not want to lose his telephone. When he received his second excessive bill he refused to pay it. As a consequence, his telephone was removed. He then received a letter from the Commonwealth Solicitor’s office threatening legal action unless he paid the account.

At that stage Mr Nichols went public. His case became public knowledge within the Toowoomba area and, through publicity in the media, in some other areas of Australia. Following this Mr Nichols received hundreds of letters from people throughout Australia outlining how similar things had happened to them. Mr Nichols wants this matter to go to court so that he can challenge Telecom and get it to prove that he actually owes the amount it claims he owes. Telecom has not issued a summons even though Mr Nichols wants it to do so. He asks, quite rightly, why Telecom does not issue a summons. Perhaps it does not want public scrutiny of its charging procedures. From the number of complaints I have received it seems obvious that Telecom’s charging system has to be changed. This is the matter I wish to stress today, not so much the letter from Mr Nichols, nor the complaints that have been brought to my office. Telecom should look at the way in which it is charging its subscribers so that it will have a fair and just case when it meets confrontation with its subscribers over the size of an account.

At present, as we know, all local, subscriber trunk dialling and international subscriber dialling calls are charged under a metered call heading. It is impossible for a subscriber to prove that he or she has not used STD and thus run up a massive account. On the other hand, it is impossible for Telecom to prove that alleged metered calls contain an STD component. Yet it adopts the stance that it is always correct and the customer is at fault. Businesses usually hold the tenet that the customer is always correct. In this case Telecom is always correct and the customer is always at fault. Last month, after receiving an unprecedented number of complaints, I wrote to the Minister for Communications (Mr Sinclair) requesting that Telecom make it a top priority to devise a different charging method. I have not yet received a reply although I would not have expected to receive one because, obviously, my letter will be passed from the Minister to his Department for comment. An answer will come back to me eventually.

When one considers the technological advances that Telecom has made over the past few years one would think that a more accurate charging method would not be beyond Telecom’s capabilities. I would like to see, as I am sure many telephone subscribers would like to see, a system which bills local calls, STD and ISD calls separately, not for a limited number of subscribers - it has been suggested to me that this could be achieved - but for all subscribers. An examination of Telecom’s profits over the past few years suggests that Telecom could afford to devise and to implement such a system. In fact, in the last day or so we have heard that again Telecom has made record profits. Telecom subscribers should have access to a charging system which properly records all calls. They rightly deserve such a system. Surely some of the profits that Telecom has made in the last few years - I refer particularly to the profit last year - can be ploughed back into devising a proper charging system and implementing its system throughout Australia.

One of my correspondents wrote about an excessive telephone bill that she had received. Recently when she was in the United States she noticed that the cost of a telephone service in Australia was mentioned in an advertisement by a United States telephone company as justification for an increase in rental charges which that company was instituting. The only trouble was that few people whom that advertisement reached in the United States believed that Australia’s charges were as claimed. I am sure that many telephone subscribers throughout Australia are anxious to hear the priorities of the new Minister for Communications and whether under his guidance Telecom will provide an acceptable billing system and will begin to put people before profits. I look forward to having word from the Minister that he will look into this matter carefully and make sure that a proper telephone charging system is instituted, especially one that breaks up local, STD and ISD calls so that when people do challenge telephone accounts they have some basis on which to argue with Telecom. They are not able to do so at present. Because they are not able to do so, invariably Telecom wins the argument.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– A number of newspaper articles have commented recently, especially since the delivery of the Governor-General’s Speech, that there may be signs of a more compassionate Government view of those unfortunate people who are unemployed in Australia, especially the young unemployed, and that perhaps there will be a better perception of their problems. On this first reading debate on this last day of the first session of this Parliament before we, like other Australians, begin to look forward to Christmas with all its implications for good living and family solidarity, I lake the opportunity again to raise this question because I believe it is wrong that we should continue not to take some positive action which will permit those young Australians who are now placed in a despondent and apparently hopeless position through no fault of their own, indeed as a result of Government policies or rather a lack of policies to help them, to continue indefinitely in that kind of economic and social limbo. I believe this is a matter which has much greater consequence for this country in the future than we may think because young people, especially intelligent young people, who are allowed to remain in this situation will tend to rebel against the system that has created it. That is a lesson as history shows, I would have thought, that has been experienced in other countries; let us not believe it cannot happen here. If a young personality is twisted and perverted, as I believe is now happening, I believe it should come as no surprise to us that the inevitable consequences of social disorder and dissension which are completely unnecessary follow’.

I believe that the Government really has not tried to show a complete understanding of the problems particularly of unemployed school leavers who have been out of work for seven or eight months and who have reached, as those people who come in contact with them have told me, a sort of plateau of hopelessness, a sort of standard input of money and experience day after day which leads them to a recognised psychological condition in which even perhaps the blow out of a tyre on their car becomes an event of major and daunting importance and in which a job interview is potentially so terrible because these people have in their minds the thought that they will probably be knocked back that it is almost impossible for them to go through with the interview. For those of us with a secure background that feeling may be very difficult to understand, but I think it exists and we must recognise that it exists.

My point is that it is a special problem. It is not a problem that will be solved solely by saying: Okay, as the economy improves there will be jobs and all you kids will get jobs’. That is not true. I do not blame only the Government for this situation. I think we need to have a different approach to the way these young people can be introduced to the work experience. I also blame the trade union movement for its selfishness and the doginthemanger attitude held by so many trade union leaders for allowing these kids to remain in limbo forever provided the unions’ precious awards are not disturbed in one way or another. I suggest to them that there are ways and means by which the problem could be solved without that danger if only they could bring themselves to consider them. I do not believe that it is the ordinary unionist who believes this way. It is the average trade unionist, the average worker and the average person who has the problems of youth unemployment - too often within his own family. It is the doctrinaire trade union official, the ancient dogmatist, who is to blame for this purblind conservative attitude - that is all I can say it is - which is preventing the development of unconventional and innovative work programs which certainly seem to the Australian Democrats the only way of solving these problems, now shared by many thousands of young Australians.

I believe that next we must look at the dole bludger syndrome and expression, and look at it in its historical background. It is an unfortunate fact of history as far as one goes back that the disadvantaged of any society tend to be made victims by that society. It is a very ancient, barbaric reaction; a reaction against guilt feelings, clearly perceptible as such. I think that the dole bludger syndrome ought to. be ruthlessly identified in our society as the unhealthy manifestation that it is. This is not to say that there is not a minority of people who do not wish to work who exploit the situation. Of course they are certainly there. I do not believe they are very numerous. It is wrong that they should be allowed to influence the position and that a whole generation should be stigmatised because of them. I am heartily sick and tired of attitudes that will permit tens of thousands of young people who want to work to continue indefinitely in this kind of limbo. That is inevitably destructive to their self-esteem, their motivation and even to their physical and mental well-being.

We will have to break through this hoary attitude and the ‘do nothing’ ideas that are preventing the fashioning of a series of work programs that could restore to these young people those things that have been taken from them. What 1 am saying is that a program will have to be devised especially to do it. It must undertake only projects that would not compete with work which award workers could carry out. In other words it would have to be a project that would otherwise not have been commenced. I suggest that there are many things to be done in this country that come into that category. I concede that it must not in any way be allowed to interfere with and erode awards. That should readily be possible with good faith on all sides.

The program has to be planned to replace the lost self-esteem and to provide motivation, work experience and self-confidence. This is what the people who work with the unemployed and drop-in centres and so on have stressed so much. Without those things it will not succeed. Those are not my views but the views of many people who, from working in drop-in centres and with young people, have much mo;e experience and direct contact than I have. This will not be achieved by any ordinary methods but plainly there must be an answer to this problem if we are not to sacrifice many thousands of our young people to our prejudices, because that is what it amounts to. Over the last couple of years I have talked to many young people in drop-in centres. I think that the people in the centres and those who work with them now know pretty well what they want, but nobody appears to be listening to them.

The basic feedback that I have had from young people is that they would like to work with their own peer group, in an association where they would feel that they were with people who had the same problems, whom they could understand, so that they could get together to try to work them out. They would know that they were working with people who have the same feelings and problems - probably lack of self-esteem and selfconfidence - that they have. They would like some choice of work experience and to feel that what they were doing was of real value to the nation. This came out tentatively. It is not the sort of thing young people talk about easily, but it did come out. This, of course, is where the question of self-esteem comes in. All these matters relating to young people were listed as more important than financial reward as such, although they did say that they hoped that only a short time in such a program - six months or perhaps a year - would allow them to get work experience. Young people said that the real hassle is that if they go to try to get a job they are asked: ‘What have you done’? They say ‘Nothing’ and are told: ‘We don’t want you’. They would like this to be a transitional program only, that would lead them to work experience and at least enable them to compete for jobs on a fair basis with other applicants.

All these young people are now pretty disillusioned. They know the difficulties involved in getting a job and they accept that situation. They just want to be able to compete fairly. On their own account, they would be prepared to work anywhere, even in rough conditions. In fact, a hint of adventure was seen as inviting and I think that is a key to an intelligent and innovative program.

A key consideration stressed by the hundreds of young people with whom I have talked this matter over at meetings and drop-in centres is that the scheme must be voluntary. Associations of relief workers, compulsory national service and so on were disliked, but granted the voluntary nature of the schemes and some choice of the type of work, some 90 per cent of these young people, boys and girls, said that they would jump at the chance even if they had to live in camps or barracks and build them themselves and even if the work was arduous. But the work would need to be useful and it would need to be in the national interest. I suggest that these projects would have to be associated with a well devised public relations campaign which honestly and genuinely stressed the patriotic aspects of the work. I believe young people are no different from what they always have been. Of course, they are idealistic. A wise and sensible government would take advantage of that idealism and see whether it could use it for motivation.

We can look overseas for an indication of why such a scheme might or might not work. In New Zealand young Maoris who were regarded as permanently unemployable and, indeed, something of a social problem are now doing useful work, enjoying themselves and acquiring motivation through the work gang program which allows a co-operative group of young people which is not necessarily exclusive - people come and go from it - to do a certain job. Perhaps it is for a local authority but it is for a definite sum of money. It is a contract. Only those who work get the money. But work gangs are given the widest possible powers of self-organisation and self-discipline. I understand that there has been an excellent response to that. I think we might find a guide there to the sort of thing we should be looking at.

Going back further, Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps, the CCC, was established in America in 1933. I mentioned this to the young people and they laughed at the name Civilian Conservation Corps. They said: ‘We would not want a name like that. We would like a name like Earth Army’. Something like that would be more appealing to young people. I suggest that something with a pompous or portentous title would not be very attractive. Those eligible to join this scheme were unmarried men - one must remember that this was in 1933 - between the ages of 18 and 25 who were unemployed. Membership was not compulsory and the scheme was part of Roosevelt’s New Deal. It was very popular and provided employment for more than 3 million men in its nine years of existence. Men enrolled for a minimum of six months and a maximum of two years and they received a basic cash allowance. It was only $30 a month but, of course, that was in 1933. In addition, food, clothing, shelter, transportation and medical services were provided free and various educational courses were also made available. The men lived in camps each housing about 200 people. In many cases, they built those camps with their own hands as an initial project.

According to contemporary accounts - not governmental accounts but independent ones - the program definitely improved the health and morale of those who took part. Equally impressive was the way in which the scheme was commenced. The idea originated in March 1933 and was passed by Congress at the end of March and the first camps were operating the following month. The story goes that Roosevelt received the public servant who was given the job of organising the Corps. He said: ‘It may take some time to do this, Mr President’. Roosevelt said quietly: ‘No, the first ones must be operating next month’, and they were. That is the way people expected government to respond.

Within a year 300,000 people were working in the CCC plans. Their tasks included reafforestation, drainage and rehabilitation of the huge areas of eroded farmland and arresting the desert incursions in America. One of the more important aspects to Australia was that fire towers and fire trails built by the CCC in the United States have given that country an enormous advantage over Australia in its degree of control over forest fires.

Initially that is an area I think we could look at. It is a matter of great national importance that similar organisations of young people in this country might look at. A contemporary quote I have here states:

The CCC was formed to save an army of idle youth from the moral erosion caused by unemployment, while at the same time assisting the national task of conserving and rebuilding America’s national resources.

There are many possibilities for using young people in Australia in projects which are plainly in the national interest. After all, we have enough of such things that need doing. How could we use our inexperienced unemployed in these necessary national tasks?

The Government should look carefully into this matter to see that the tasks are actually commenced. It would need the people with the expertise to see that the motivation and the initial training was there so that the young people would not be completely in the cold but would be given some instruction as to what they were to do. At the same time the Government would have the delicate task of appearing, for the sake of the young people themselves, to make the scheme as self-motivating as possible because this is the kind of work experience that is the pattern of the future.

This is the pattern of industrial democracy that we, as a party, press so much. The money is there to do this. It might not even take a vast amount of money. Local authorities could well be the people who would want to contract with these work groups and these local authorities have their own funds. But, of course, there is the crude oil levy which should be used while we still have it. It is a wasting asset. We should use it to get aspects of the economy moving again through infusions of productivity into key areas.

The Australian Democrats have stressed before the energy area, an area into which we could be getting. If we stressed growth in the energy areas of ethanol, methanol from natural gas, and things of that sort, we would be providing areas of employment which would flow on from these work group experiences. We would have an expanding economy where people could find jobs. I am trying to make the point that it is no good just providing jobs for these young people when they are not equipped to take them because of their phychological condition. We have to take special measures to ensure that they are equipped to take these jobs.

While I am on the subject of methanol from natural gas I would like to draw a point to the attention of the Government which it might not have noticed. The MAN diesel company in Germany has made a major breakthrough in the use of methanol, derived from natural gas, for running buses. In fact, all the buses in Auckland, New Zealand will be running on methanol by 1985. The breakthrough has been a faily simple conversion of a high compression diesel engine which, when converted to spark ignition, operates extremely well on methanol. I suggest that is a factor of prime importance - I will obtain the basic paper work from MAN - which we should look at very carefully because we have enormous possibilities in this country for methanol from our natural gas fields. That is an area into which our young people could move.

I return to the CCC example and wish to float some very sensitive ideas with honourable senators which I hope they will take in the right context. I address these remarks mainly to my colleagues in the Australian Labor Party. Can such a scheme pay award wages and offer award conditions in all or even some cases? I do not think it can. This is something with which we have to cope; it is something we have to accommodate. It is not something from which we should run away. It is something we should recognise and accept. Certainly, we should have the greatest safeguards so that a slave class is not created and there is no erosion of awards. If the Government is giving this matter consideration, and if it wants a scheme like this to succeed, I plead with the Government to take the greatest care and to be scrupulous with that aspect of it. I believe it is absolutely vital. I can understand the gut feeling of the union movement against this scheme. To my mind the necessities and demands of these young people ought to override those feelings. The Union movement should at least give the idea a chance.

I have already spoken with a number of people in local authorities about this matter. If the Government wants to go ahead with this scheme I can give it some names and places. It is true that a number of people would be quite willing to go ahead with the pilot scheme. The Australian Democrats believe that whilst a scheme like this should be got off the ground soon and pushed along, not left just to lie through an experimental phase for a long time, it should be done after fullest consultation with the community and the unions. Pilot schemes could begin quite soon in a small way and could teach some people some lessons.

The Australian Democrats do not believe that it has the answers to this problem but it has tried to identify the problem. We see it now as a problem of frightening proportions and potential which we do not believe could be solved in any other way. For that reason we are pressing it at this stage. We do not believe either that all these schemes will get all our young unemployed motivated and back to work. Far from it. It would be hopelessly naive and ambitious to think that. If honourable senators can salvage the lives of 10,000 young people, 1,000 or, for that matter, even 100 young lives, 1 believe it surely would be worthwhile.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In speaking to the Barley Research Bill 1980 1 wish to raise a matter which I raised last week. The matter concerns honourable senators asking questions during Senate Estimates committee hearings, in the consideration of Appropriation Bills, or even during the adjournment debate. Ministers write to senators privately and the answers never go on the public record. I hope that that situation can be remedied in view of what Mr President said the other day. If I do not get some of those answers on the public record today some things will not be put on until the autumn session next year.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Didn’t the President table some of that extra information for the record earlier this week?

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr President did table some further information, but that was not the sort of information I wanted incorporated in the record. I was referring to letters written by Ministers to individual senators answering questions they had raised - on this occasion I am talking about questions I had raised - and which had not appeared on the public record. I would have thought that in the first week of this sitting the Ministers responsible would have taken the opportunity to incorporate those answers in Hansard or give the answers at the end of Question Time, as is often done by Ministers.

During the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) on 16 September I expressed concern at the different values being used by the Department of Social Security and the Taxation Office in respect of de facto spouses. I cited the case of an unemployed male person with a de facto spouse, claiming unemployment benefit and being paid by the Department of Social Security at the married rate. That person may have been unemployed for six months in a particular financial year and been in receipt of an income for the other six months. When he fills in his taxation return and claims his de facto as a dependant, the Taxation Office will not recognise her as a dependant unless a child is involved. To my mind, that is an anomaly. The Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) wrote to the Treasurer (Mr

Howard), and I will read the letter into Hansard. I also have a letter addressed to me, dated 19 October, which states:

Dear Senator McLaren,

During debate on Appropriation Bill Number 1 on ^September 1980, you raised a matter concerning income tax aspects in a de facto relationship.

The Minister Assisting the Treasurer has written to me about the matters you raised and a copy of his letter is attached for your information.

I want to read into the record that letter, dated 1 7 November, from the new Minister assisting the Treasurer, Senator Messner, to Senator Carrick. The letter states:

I refer to your recent letter to the Treasurer concerning income tax aspects of a de facto relationship, being the matter recently raised in the Senate by Senator McLaren and Senator Cavanagh.

I should add that Senator Cavanagh has also raised this matter on several occasions. The letter continues:

At the outset, I should mention that, although the Department of Social Security may recognise a de facto relationship, this cun be allied only in a general way to taxation concessions for dependants. They are, in fact, quite different matters, and it is not inconsistent to have varying conditions applying to each. Furthermore, the criteria applied by the Department of Social Security would not provide conclusive grounds for establishing that a concessional rebate would be allowable under the current provisions of the income tax law.

As the Commissioner of Taxation is responsible for the administration of the income lax laws 1 sought his comments. He confirmed that a concessional rebate is not allowable for a de facto spouse. This concession has always been confined to partners of a legal marriage and this view has been upheld by Taxation Boards of Review. In considering the question of the different status attributed for income tax dependant rebate purposes and for Social Security purposes to a couple living together in a de facto relationship, it is important to bear in mind that the relevant provisions are, in fact, designed under two distinct Acts of Parliament to serve quite different purposes.

The Commissioner added that, although a concessional rebate is not allowable in respect of a de facto wife, in cases in which a taxpayer establishes that his de facto wife is wholly engaged in keeping house for him and in caring for specified dependants, including children under 16 years of age or an invalid relative, a rebate is allowable under the housekeeper provisions of the income tax law.

The provisions relating to concessional rebates, including the rebates for the maintenance of a spouse, represent the extent to which the Government has seen its way clear to provide taxation relief for some of the family obligations and personal liabilities of taxpayers. The restriction of the spouse rebate to a person who is legally married to the taxpayer has been a feature of the income tax law for many years, and no Government has seen fit to remove it. This matter was considered in the deliberations leading to this year’s Budget but it was not found practicable to amend the law as would be required to extend the spouse rebate provisions to include de facto relationships.

Yours sincerely TONY MESSNER

The Minister’s letter appears to me to indicate that the Government is having it both ways so far as finance is concerned. If both persons living in a de facto relationship are unemployed the Government will not pay the single rate unemployment benefit to each of those persons. They are paid at the married rate, which is a lesser rate. As I cited, when the person involved has a job for six months and has some income, he fills in an income tax return. The Australian Taxation Office will not recognise the spouse as a dependant unless the male, the breadwinner, has a dependent child, in which case he can legally claim his spouse as a housekeeper. There is an anomaly there. I hope that before the next Budget is brought down the Government will take steps to rectify that anomaly which in my view, and in the view of Senator Cavanagh, exists. If the Minister responsible had seen fit to incorporate that answer in Hansard, I would not have had to take up the time of the Senate today.

There is another matter which I wish to raise and which I raised at Estimates Committee A. It related to the disposal of Monarto, in South Australia. Of course we know that is a fait accompli. Legislation has gone through the South Australian Parliament to repeal the legislation in relation to Monarto. In my view that is a tragedy. I raised that matter on 29 August 1980 at Estimates Committee A. On 13 October 1980 the Minister for National Development and Energy wrote to me providing additional information in answer to my question. My perusal of Hansard shows that the answer is not incorporated in Hansard. I think it is important that the letter should be incorporated. Senator Carrick wrote:

Dear Senator McLaren,

During the Senate’s consideration of the 1 980-8 1 appropriations for my Department, undertakings were given to provide additional information to you on two matters.

Monarto Growth Centre

You asked in what way did the proposal submitted in 1 978 by Mr Dunstan, the then South Australian Premier, differ from the proposal submitted by Mr Tonkin, the present South Australian Premier.

The proposal put forward by Mr Dunstan in September 1978 envisaged conversion of the amounts due to the Commonwealth to non-repayable, non-interest bearing grants. It was envisaged also, that in the event that further financial assistance was forthcoming from the Commonwealth at a later date, the grants would revert to loans on a basis to be agreed.

The proposal put forward by Mr Tonkin in January 1980 envisaged conversion of each Government’s loan indebtedness, including capitalised interest in the project, to equity. It was also proposed that returns from the disposal or leasing of the Monarto lands be shared in proportion to each Government’s respective equity contributions in the project. Following consideration of the proposals, the Commonwealth proposed, and South Australia subsequently agreed, that South Australia pay to the Commonwealth an amount of $5.1 m in full settlement of its obligations under the agreements.

Expenditure on Uranium and Related Activities

You also asked Tor estimates of the total expenditure by other Departments on uranium and related activities, and Senator Chaney indicated that he would secure relevant details for you.

I have since ascertained that, following a similar question in Senate Estimates Committee F, the Department of Finance is already compiling the relevant information. I have asked that Department to ensure that the information is also passed on to you.

Yours sincerely, J. L. CARRICK

That information in respect of my question on uranium has not yet been transmitted to me. I cannot find it anywhere in the public record.

In so far as the Monarto growth centre is concerned, it does appear that while the Federal Government was not prepared to listen to a proposition from the Dunstan Labor Government in respect of Monarto, it was quite happy to listen to a similar proposition from the Tonkin Liberal Government. No doubt the Commonwealth was given an undertaking by Tonkin, as has been proved by legislation, that Monarto would be sold to private enterprise. Much of the land held by the South Australian Land Commission has been flogged off to private people. In the view of many people in my party, I should say all the people in my party, that land should be retained as Crown Land and not handed over to private enterprise so that it can make a huge profit and put the price of land up to an exorbitant price, which means that young home buyers cannot buy land at a reasonable price. It gets back to the old philosophy of this Government that private enterprise is the best way for the people who support it to make profits.

I say again that I am most disappointed that Mr Dunstan’s submission to the Government that future financial assistance be made by way of grants which could be converted back to loans and attract interest was not adopted. Instead of that, we see this Monarto enterprise being flogged off to farmers. When asked questions about the trees that were planted at Monarto, the South Australian Minister of Environment, Minister of Planning and member for the seat of Murray, Mr Wotton, said: ‘We are going to amend the Heritage Act and we will give some concessions to farmers in that Act. If they do not destroy the trees they will get concessions on rates.’ What a weak issue that is!

The other matter to which I want to refer was also raised at a meeting of Estimates Committee A. Both Senator Davidson and I asked questions about visits by two distinguished persons. Senator Davidson was interested in the visit of Princess Alexandra. The other one was the visit of Her

Majesty next year. We have been told with regard to information about the cost of these visits that the Government has decided that, commencing this financial year, it will adopt out of courtesy to visitors the practice of comparable countries of not publishing individual costs of visits by guests of the Government. I want to place on record the cost of those two visits. The visit of Princess Alexandra, who no doubt was brought out here to support the Government in the last election campaign, cost the taxpayer of this country $900,000.

Senator Elstob:

– How much?

Senator McLAREN:

– That is the figure in the Estimates. This was the cost under the heading Distinguished visitors, guests and special occasions - official hospitality, presentations and entertainment’. The estimated cost for this financial year- that is 1980-81- is $900,000. The estimated cost of the proposed Royal visit for 1980-81 is $124,000. The usual practice is for information to be set out in the explanatory notes which are considered by Estimates committees. This information has been on the public record in the past. But this Government has now decided that information in respect of distinguished visitors will be secret. The Government will keep secret the amount of money spent to bring people here at the taxpayers’ expense. I think that is another scandal, along with the scandal of the refusal of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to divulge what it costs for him to live at The Lodge.

In conclusion, 1 want to raise something which is of grave concern to all South Australians because of the downturn in the economy of that State. I refer to the rapid increase in the number of bankruptcies in that State since the election of the Tonkin Liberal Government. According to figures tabled in the Parliament yesterday, the number of bankruptcy proceedings in South Australia last year was 964, which represents an increase of 18.41 per cent over the previous year. When we look at the details we find that the people in the most serious trouble are people in the building industry which employs 113,000 people. There were 155 bankruptcy proceedings in the commerce sector. So we can see there has been a rapid increase in the number of bankruptcies under the Tonkin Liberal Government. I would say that by the time Tonkin is finished with South Australia the economy of that State will be at rock bottom. I think it is a crying shame that the people of South Australia made a mistake, because of a transport strike last October, and elected the Tonkin Liberal Government. They will rue the day for the rest of their lives.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– 1 want to take about 10 minutes of the Senate’s time to deal with two matters. The first one concerns an amazing story of a crook who was let out of Fremantle Gaol on 18 October to hand out how to vote cards for another crook who ought to be in Fremantle Gaol but is not. The first crook is one Lionel Cruttenden, a convicted swindler, who has been sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. Of course, the second is Noel Crichton-Browne, who was No. 3 on the Liberal Party Senate ticket in Western Australia. The facts of the case are that Cruttenden was let out on special leave for the weekend, one of the conditions being that he be in the company of his immediate family throughout the weekend. He was in fact observed by a prison officer handing out Liberal Party how to vote cards outside a polling booth when not accompanied by one of his relatives.

Cruttenden’s weekend leave was not the only example of how he was the beneficiary of unusually compassionate treatment in a penal system and under a government not noted for its enlightenment. It appears that Cruttenden was involved also in some murky goings-on during the intra-party battle for the Liberal Party leadership after the retirement of former Premier David Brand. He was a shareholder in a company, run by a Melbourne private detective called Tom Eriksen, which compiled a dossier on one of the Liberal Party leadership contenders who, inter alia, owned a brothel. Judging from some recent events and endorsements in Western Australia it would appear that, were it not for constitutional constraints, Cruttenden would have a bright career ahead of him in the parliamentary Liberal Party just as soon as he could get out on parole.

The Department of Corrections manual states that special leave is granted only in the last 12 months of a prisoner’s sentence. It was granted to Cruttenden when he had 1 0 years of his sentence still to serve. In fact he had been out on special leave every weekend. In between his weekend leaves he was domiciled at the West Perth work release centre, although he was not qualified under the Department of Corrections manual regulations to stay at the West Perth work release centre. Special ministerial considerations had been given to granting Cruttenden these special privileges. In fact, he had been granted these special privileges because of ministerial consideration or ministerial directive.

When these “latters were raised first in the Western Australian Parliament, Mr O’Connor, a Minister, said that Cruttenden had paid back virtually all of the $170,000 he originally had misappropriated. It was subsequently revealed that that was not the case. Police Minister Hassell said that Cruttenden’s father had terminal cancer, and did not have very long to live. He gave that as a reason why these special privileges had been granted to Cruttenden. The allegation that Cruttenden’s father had cancer was denied the next day by Cruttenden’s mother, although it is acknowledged that Cruttenden’s father is said to be quite ill. Following that spectacularly unsuccessful attempt to explain away these extraordinary facts, Police Minister Hassell the next day in Parliament refused to answer any more questions on the subject, stating that to do so would not be in the public interest. That earned him this editorial rebuke from the normally very conservative West Australian newspaper.

Instead of providing full and frank answers, the Ministers concerned– 1 interpolate that that is primarily Mr O’Connor and Mr Hassell - have clouded the picture with inaccuracies, a smear against the Press and a threat against public servants.

This is yet another example of the highly selective application of the law in Western Australia under the administration of Premier Court, the Police administration under Commissioner Leitch and, more recently it appears, the Police Minister, Mr Hassell. Similar examples of highly selective application of the law can be found in the lack of prosecution in the Crichton-Browne case and various matters associated with elections in the Kimberleys.

The second matter I raise concerns a complaint I have received by telex from I.D.S. Collie - I think it is Ian Collie - a solicitor of Melbourne, regarding a speech I made in the Senate two days ago. Yesterday I received a telex from Mr Collie in which he alleged that I had implied, when speaking about the Garland family companies - Stirling West Pty Ltd, Frederic Salon Pty Ltd and Greenbank Pty Ltd - that Rickford Administration Pty Ltd and Hulldale Pty Ltd may have been associated with the organisation of bottomoftheharbour schemes. He pointed out that the Garland family companies, that is, Stirling West, Frederick Salon and Greenbank, had received, prior to liquidation, taxation clearances from the Commissioner of Taxation. His second complaint was that Slutzkin schemes, to which I referred, were aimed only at avoiding tax on dividends, whereas the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Bill, which was passed last Wednesday night, was concerned primarily with the avoidance of company tax by the stripping of all assets of companies and, to a minor extent I understand, with the avoidance of tax on dividends in the hands of shareholders. Mr Collie’s third complaint concerned some opinions of his, on the effect of marginal tax rates on the incidence of tax avoidance, which expressed disagreement with my views.

In reply, on those three aspects, I did say that the circumstances surrounding the Garland companies bore the hallmark of a dividend stripping operation, a Slutzkin-type scheme. The facts, as they are known, are indeed compatible with an operation to remove dividends from a company and transfer them to shareholders in a manner which is not taxable, rather than in a normal manner under which they would be. Mr Collie, who of course became a shareholder and a director of the Garland companies at some time after the ownership passed from the Garland family, did not deny in his telex to me that the multiple changes of ownership and registration were associated with dividend stripping; he neither denied nor confirmed that that was the case.

The opinion that he expressed concerning the effect of marginal tax rates on the incidence of tax avoidance I accept as being his own. I merely note for the record that he made no attempt to explain why significantly higher marginal tax rates throughout the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s and most of the 1970s had not induced massive tax avaidance. That phenomenon pre-dated a series of highly permissive judgments by the High Court. Yesterday, in reply to Mr Collie, I sent this telegram:

In response to your telex it was not my intention to reflect unfairly on you.

I would be delighted to lay before the Senate any facts relevant to the liquidation of Stirling West, Greenbank and Frederic Salon and their association with Hulldale and Rickford Administration.

Friday Sth December is to be the last day of sitting this year. I would welcome information from you in time to present it to the Senate before the adjournment.

This morning I received the following reply from Mr Collie:

I refer to your telex, lt is not for me to advise on the interrelationship of the companies to which you refer.

Nevertheless having regard to the thrust of your speech on Wednesday in all fairness the relevant fact of which you should appraise the Senate is simply that the three companies were liquidated and final distributions made only after tax clearances were given by the Australian tax office.

I have now complied with Mr Collie’s request. I observe again for the record that the matter of avoiding tax otherwise payable on dividends in the hands of the original shareholders of the company is not touched upon by Mr Collie, either in that telex or in his previous telex. I also note that Mr Collie has not accepted my invitation to supply all of the details relevant to the relationship between Rickford Administration. Hulldale and the Garland family companies. I would have been delighted to have put them before the Senate had he cared to supply them. I would also be delighted if the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) at some time in the future would see fit to put them before the House of Representatives or if the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) would see fit to lay before the House of Representatives the details of Mr Garland’s pecuniary interests in these companies, in other companies or in anything at all, I suppose, which were supposed to have been declared to the Prime Minister in accordance with the guidelines on ministerial pecuniary interests which Mr Fraser established shortly after he became Prime Minister.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a first time.

Second Readings

Senator MESSNER:
South AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows -

Barley Research Bill 1980

The purpose of this Bill is to provide the machinery necessary for the collection of the levy imposed by the Barley Research Levy Bill 1 980, to set up a barley research trust account for the funding of a research scheme, and to establish both a National Barley Industry Research Council and State committees. This Bill, which should be read as one with the Barley Research Levy Bill 1980, provides for the Act to become operative on the same date on which the Barley Research Levy Act 1980 comes into operation. It is the Government’s established policy to foster research into the needs of our rural industries. The national barley scheme is a logical extension of those research programs already operating successfully for other industries.

While there are significant quantities of barley produced in all mainland States, the Commonwealth at present contributes annually to barley research in only three States. The Commonwealth has contributed to the barley improvement plan in South Australia and Victoria since 1956 when these two States together produced the bulk of the national barley output. A separate program with financial support provided by the Commonwealth commenced in Western Australia in 1963. Since the Government confirmed its policy on matching grower levies in 1977, there have been requests for additional Commonwealth funds for barley research and an equitable distribution of those funds among the States. There is general agreement among Australian Barley Producers and all State governments that a need exists for increased research through an Australia-wide scheme.

Since 1956 barley production has expanded rapidly in all States, and from 1972 a statutory marketing authority has been operating in every mainland State, exporting a substantial proportion of the production of each of those States. The proposed scheme will afford an equitable basis for the allocation of Commonwealth assistance to barley research, and will be consistent with statutory research schemes for other rural industries. The Bill provides for the establishment of an Australia-wide barley research scheme to which the Commonwealth will contribute. The levy collected on barley produced in a State will be used to finance research programs in that State, and the Commonwealth will contribute funds, not exceeding the total levy collections, for a national research program. There is also provision for contributions from sources other than producers levies. Expenditure of any such funds would be on an unmatched basis. In these respects the barley research scheme will be similar to the wheat research scheme which has operated since 1957.

Under the cognate Barley Research Levy Bill, levy is payable when the grower delivers barley to another person. For practical reasons that receiver, under the present Bill, is liable to pay the levy and may deduct the amount from the purchase price or recover in another way from the grower any levy paid on his behalf. The Bill establishes a Barley Research Trust Account into which will be paid the funds raised by way of the levy and the Commonwealth’s contribution. Barley industry research committees, with a producer majority membership, are to be established in each mainland State. It will be a function of each committee to approve expenditure from the State’s share of the account on research to be conducted in the State. In the case of Tasmania where production of barley is relatively small, the amount of levy collected is expected to be correspondingly small and it is not considered necessary to establish a State research committee. Instead, the Tasmanian Minister for Primary Industry will approve expenditure of funds collected by levy in that State.

A Barley Industry Research Council will be established to make recommendations to the Minister for Primary Industry on a national research program funded by the Commonwealth’s contribution. The Council will consist of 10 members, five to represent State departments responsible for agriculture in the mainland barley-producing States, two to represent producers, and one each to represent the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australian Universities and the Department of Primary Industry. The Committees and Council will consult with each other to avoid duplication in the financing of research. Purposes for which moneys from the Trust Account may be expended broadly follow the precedent of other joint Commonwealth Industry schemes, and will be used for scientific, technical, or economic research in connection with the barley industry.

It is intended that the research program under the national scheme will begin in financial year 1981-82, funded by the levy on the current harvest supplemented by the Commonwealth contribution. Provision has been made to ensure that receivers of barley who are required to pay the levy on the growers’ behalf have sufficient time to make payments. For levy on deliveries made during the quarter commencing 1 September 1980, the Bill allows receivers eight weeks after the date of royal assent to make payment.

Barley is the most important coarse grain produced in Australia. Gross value of barley production in 1979-80 was estimated at $464m. In that year, barley accounted for over threequarters of the value of Australia’s coarse grain exports. Research undertaken through the new program Australia-wide will help this significant industry to meet the problems and challenges of the future. Those challenges include the development of new varieties, yield improvement, the combating of pests and diseases, and many others. For the first time, the scheme will enable a concerted effort to be made for a national ordering of priorities in barley research. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Barley Research Levy Bill 1980

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the imposition of a levy on the production of barley in Australia. The moneys raised by the levy will be used to finance a research scheme for the Australian barley industry. Provisions for the research scheme are contained in the related Barley Research Bill 1980. The Act will come into operation on royal assent and will apply to barley produced in Australia and harvested on or after 1 September 1980. This date has been chosen to coincide with the seasonal pattern of production. The legislation specifies an initial levy of 1 5c per tonne, with provision for the rate to be varied up to a maximum of 20c per tonne. Any subsequent alterations to the operative rate of levy will be prescribed by regulation.

The Bill provides that any action to change the operative rate of levy shall take into consideration any relevant recommendation of the Australian Wheatgrowers’ Federation, which incorporates within its organisational structure a barley committee representing Australian barley growers. The levy is imposed on the production of barley, and growers are liable to pay the levy. Levy is not payable, however, unless the grower delivers the barley to another person. For convenience, provision is made in the cognate Barley Research Bill for levy to be collected from the receivers of the barley. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned.

page 462

DAIRYING INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND PROMOTION LEVY 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 Messner) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator MESSNER:
South AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act 1 972 in order to increase the maximum rates of levies which can be applied, for domestic promotion purposes and for research, to whole milk and butter fat production under sections 7 (a) and (b) and 1 1 (a) and (b) of the Act. Under the Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Act 1958, the Australian Dairy Corporation has been given the charter of promoting the sale of all dairy products, including market milk, cream and fresh milk products, in Australia. Funds for this purpose are derived from a levy on the production of all whole milk and butter fat imposed under the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act 1972.

Under the present provisions of the Act the maximum rates of levy which can be applied, for domestic promotional purposes, are 6c per 100 litres of whole milk and $1.50 per 100 kilograms of butter fat. These maxima have also been the operative rates since 1 July 1978. Falling milk production in Australia has resulted in a decline in the funds collected from the domestic promotion levy in recent years. This reduced level of income is threatening the Australian Dairy Corporation’s ability to continue to finance the rising cost of its established domestic promotion programs, which are aimed at maintaining and improving current levels of consumption of dairy products in Australia, on behalf of the dairy industry.

The Australian Dairy Farmer’s Federation, the major producer body, sought amendment of the Act to provide for increased maximum rates of domestic promotion levy with a view to enabling the Corporation to obtain the necessary level of funds required to mount effective promotion programs. The Bill provides for an increase in the maximum rates of domestic promotion levy which can be applied to 12c per 100 litres of whole milk and $3 per 100 kilograms of butter fat produced.

It is pleasing to the Government that the dairy industry supports the activities of the Australian Dairy Corporation and is prepared to meet the costs involved in sustaining an effective domestic promotion campaign. The research levy provides the industry’s contribution to dairying research activities. The proceeds are appropriated to the Dairying Research Trust Account under the Dairying Research Act 1972, which also established the Dairying Research Committee to make recommendations to the Minister for Primary Industry on expenditure from the Research Account. The Commonwealth matches industry contributions as funds are spent. The current operative and maximum rates of research levy are 0.8c and lc per 100 litres of whole milk and 20c and 25c per 100 kilograms of butter fat, respectively.

The Dairying Research Committee and the Australian Dairy Farmers’ Federation have requested, and the Bill provides, an increase in the maximum research levy rates to 1.2c per 100 litres of whole milk and 30c per 100 kilograms of butter fat produced. This amendment is sought to facilitate forward planning for research in the coming years. An early increase in rates of levy paid by producers or the totality of the research effort is not contemplated. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned.

page 463

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1980

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Messner) 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 Customs Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1980 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980 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.

First Readings

Motion (by Senator Messner) proposed:

That the Bills be now read a first time.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I wish to raise a similar matter to that which I raised on the first reading of a previous money Bill; that is, the receiving of answers to questions after the rising of the Senate, those answers having not been placed on the public record by the relevant Minister. The matter I refer to now is in connection with the Australian Dairy Corporation and questions I raised in this chamber on 20, 21 and 26 August concerning the provision of a motor vehicle for the Deputy Chairman, Mr W. H. Pyle, of the Australian Dairy Corporation. The first part of my question was:

Has Mr Webster or Mr Pyle made restitution of the amount of $1,609 referred to in a previous answer, or of any part of that amount?

This morning I put such a question to Senator Chaney in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry and be said that he would take the question on notice and get an answer. That question has been on notice now since August of last year and the answer still has not been provided. But Senator Chaney, in his answer, did say that the matter was now before a Senate standing committee and that there was also police involvement in the matter. The answer of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) to the first part of my question was:

The Australian Dairy Corporation has advised that no restitution of any of the $ 1 , 609 has been made by Mr Webster or Mr Pyle. I have, however, asked the Chairman of the Corporation to make appropriate inquiries to ascertain if any duplication of payment of running expenses of the vehicle by the Corporation and the United Dairyfarmers of Victoria (UDV) has occurred.

I have had no answer to that part of my question either. Part (4) of my question was:

Will the Minister lay on the table all documents pertaining to this matter?

The Minister, in his letter to me, said:

I do not consider that the circumstances surrounding this matter calls for the tabling of documents. Relevant Department files, however, can be made available to you if you so desire.

I am not going to take advantage of the offer made to me by the Minister because I might read in those files something which I already know. If I were to make public comment at a later date I could then be accused of breaching a confidence extended to me by the Minister. So, for that very reason, I have not seen fit to take advantage of the offer the Minister made to me. I have raised this matter many times in the Parliament and I do have certain information. There may come a day when I will want to use it and if I were to do so I could then be accused of having obtained that information by my perusal of the files. I do not want to delay the Senate by saying any more about that. I understand that the matter is under due consideration by the Senate standing committee and I do not want to cut across that. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the full text of the letter to me, signed by Mr Nixon and dated 7 October.

Leave granted.

The letter read as follows -

MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Telephone (062) 73 1711 7 October 1980

Dear Senator McLaren,

During the Adjournment Debate of 20 August 1980 and at question time on 21 and 26 August 1980 in the Senate, you asked the following questions in connection with the provision of a motor vehicle for the Deputy Chairman, Mr. W. H. Pyle, of the Australian Dairy Corporation and the use of that vehicle:

Has Mr. Webster or Mr. Pyle made restitution of the amount of $ 1 , 609 referred to in a previous answer, or of any part of that amount?

Did Mr. Pyle, on becoming Acting Chairman of the Australian Dairy Corporation on1 January 1980 continue to use the vehicle referred to?

In view of the fact that on the ABC radio programme AM this morning (21 August) Mr. Pyle admitted that he still has the car, will the Minister consider terminating Mr. Pyle’s appointment under section 8 of the Dairy Produce Act which provides for termination of appointments ‘by reason of misbehaviour’?

will the Minister lay on the table all documents pertaining to this matter?

Is Mr. Pyle or anyone else entitled to use a Corporation Car on United Dairyfarmers of Victoria business? If not, will the Minister request his colleague to cease turning a blind eye to this matter as did his predecessor and take urgent steps to ensure that the law of the land is strictly adhered to?

As it was not possible to have the questions you raised answered in Hansard before the rising of Parliament I am now writing to provide you with the following answers to them:

1 ) The Australian Dairy Corporation has advised that no restitution or any of the $1,609 has been made by Mr. Webster or Mr, Pyle. 1 have, however, asked the Chairman of the Corporation to make appropriate enquiries to ascertain if any duplication of payment of running expenses of the vehicle by the Corporation and the United Dairyfarmers of Victoria (UDV) has occurred.

The Corporation has advised that Mr. Pyle used the motor vehicle up until approximately 12 March 1980 and that he recommenced using the vehicle again when he resumed the position of Deputy Chairman of the Corporation on I July 1980. In the intervening period, the Corporation has advised that, as Acting Chairman, Mr Pyle had access to the car normally used by the Chairman.

Although Mr. Pyle has used the Corporation car on UDV business, it is not considered that the action is so serious as to warrant the extreme action of dismissal.

I do not consider that the circumstances surrounding this matter calls for the tabling of documents. Relevant Department files, however, can be made available to you if you so desire.

Corporation cars are not available for use other than on official Corporation business. I have discussed this matter with the Chairman of the Corporation. The Chairman has assured me that he has taken action to ensure that the Government’s policy on the provision and use of motor vehicles by members and staff of statutory authorities is strictly observed by the Corporation.

Yours sincerely, P.J.NIXON

Senator G. T. McLaren, 6 Third Street, Murray Bridge, SA 5253

Senator McLAREN:

– I leave the matter at that. I hope that this matter is resolved very quickly and to the satisfaction of everybody concerned.

Sitting suspended from 12.59 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– Nearly 18 months ago Mr Nigel Scheerer, who is marketing co-ordinator of the Tasmanian Apple and Pear Marketing Authority, investigated manhour levies being paid at Port Huon. Mr Scheerer is a very determined and a very thorough gentleman. He was able to come up with figures that the Department of Industrial Relations was unable to come up with. He proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that the apple industry of Tasmania was being disadvantaged in a major way. He came up with the following facts. Port Huon was classified as a non-permanent port. As such it incurred levies appropriate to that classification. The fact that Port Huon worked only during the apple export season - that is, for three months of the year - was not taken into consideration. In fact, Port Huon is, in this regard, the only nonpermanent port in Australia that does not function for the whole 12 months; it is a true seasonal port. The important fact is that in those three months the man-hours worked exceed those of any of the other non-permanent ports for any three months of the year. Indeed, they exceed the total man-hours of many of the non-permanent ports.

The levies incurred at Port Huon contribute to paying for such things as annual leave, statutory holidays, annual leave travel, attendance money, compassionate leave, guaranteed attendance, administration fees, long service leave, conciliation fees and the stevedoring employees retirement fund. As honourable senators can imagine, someone working in a port that operates only for three months would have to serve a very long time to become eligible for any long service leave. Annual leave travel just does not apply to Port Huon. Employees there work for only three months of the year. They do not get any attendance money for the rest of the year because the port is not operating as a port in that time. Some of these benefits do not apply; others apply in a very minor way.

Mr Scheerer brought all this information to the notice of the State Government and to me. I brought it to the notice of the then Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street. Unfortunately, at this time Mr Scheerer also brought to the notice of the Tasmanian Premier certain information regarding other matters associated with the Tasmanian Apple and Pear Marketing Authority. This resulted in certain problems within that Authority because of the ill-feeling that followed and the State did not follow the matter up and take up the cudgels on behalf of the apple growers of Tasmania who, as I said, were being disadvantaged by these levies. Costs incurred were so great that they really struck at the whole viability of the Tasmanian industry. In the meantime I took up Mr Scheerer’s figures with the Minister. The Minister, and his Department, looked at these figures. They acknowledged that a gross injustice was being done to the Tasmanian apple growers. They found that the situation was very difficult to rectify. Permanent ports were subsidising the nonpermanent ports and the permanent ports, while paying what we believed was a fair share, insisted upon all the non-permanent ports paying their total levy.

As I said, Tasmania had the only nonpermanent seasonal port. It was in a different category although not recognised as such. After 1 8 months of negotiating with the Minister, I am pleased to say that justice has been done. Mr Scheerer’s dedicated work has, as it were, borne fruit to the apple industry. The federal coordinating committee, consisting of representatives of employers and unions, has determined that Port Huon is to be classified as a permanent port for the duration of the three-month fruit export season. Section 87 of the relevant Act provides that the port co-ordinating committee recruit labour from the Huon. With this reclassification of port status, the Port Huon levy is to decrease from $6.14 to $1.09 per man hour. The sum of $5.05 per man hour is an incredible saving for the fruit industry; for every apple packed it represents an incredible saving. In 1979 the industry would have saved $225,230 and that makes a big difference to our industry. It will be viable and will not suffer from disadvantages as at present. I would like to thank Mr Scheerer publicly - he no longer works in the apple industry - for all the work he did. I know of all the problems and traumas that he went through. 1 am sure that he now knows that all the problems he faced were worth while. I hope that the apple industry and the growers in the Huon will be grateful to him because he received little gratitude from the State Government.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– I take advantage of this debate to raise a matter concerning the health of women in Australia. Today the Senate witnessed a most ludicrous episode. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Peter Baume) who represents the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) in this chamber gave information in reply to a question asked previously regarding the amount of sugar in a bun that can be purchased at a junk food outlet. Yesterday, for the third time, I asked a question about diethylstilboestrol and could get no answer. On Wednesday I asked a question regarding toxic shock and the use of tampons. I received a part answer which was demonstrably wrong and which showed the little concern of the Government in this area. There was no reply in respect of the rest of the information I required.

I think this incident illustrates the real ignorance of many of the health problems of Australian women and the lack of concern exhibited by the Government when these problems are brought to its attention. Diethylstilboestrol, as I have said before, is a drug given to women to treat threatened abortion. Sometimes it is given for morning sickness and for a variety of complaints associated with childbirth and menstruation. It was first used 20 to 30 years ago. It is now found that many of the children of those women - certainly the girls and probably the boys - are in grave danger of having cancer. There is established, accepted evidence that the daughters of these women, as a direct result of their mothers’ having taken this drug, may find that they have vaginal adenosis or adenocarcinoma. The boys appear to have cancer of the breast and of the testes. Both sexes may have malformed reproductive organs, causing sterility.

The mothers who took the drug are at great risk of developing breast cancer. If, firstly, the mothers who took the drug can be contacted, they can be screened more often than is normal so that breast cancer may be caught earlier. If the children of mothers who took the drug can be contacted they can be screened much more thoroughly, which is needed, much more often, and the screening can start when they are much younger so that the early manifestations of cancer may be caught in time. The Australian Drug Evaluation Committee drew the attention of the medical profession to these problems in 1972 and again in 1975, but at no time was information given to the public. We do not know how urgent was the message that went out to the medical profession.

I raised this matter in this place in September and asked whether the Government would take action. I asked it to use the records of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Branch to find women who had DES - diethylstilboestrol - prescribed for them. I asked it to require members of the medical profession to check their records and to contact women for whom they had prescribed the drug. In reply, the Minister stated:

The ADEC has been actively reviewing the adverse effects of stilboestrol since mid 1 979. The intervening period has been marked by the publication of several papers suggesting that both male and female children bom to mothers who took stilboestrol during pregnancy many years ago may be at greater risk of developing diseases other than vaginal adenocarcinoma. Some of these reports have been preliminary or anecdotal and require confirmation before satisfactory assessment of their implications can be made.

The Minister goes on to state: . . no reliable means is available in Australia, either through the records of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Branch, or from private medical practitioners for the systematic identification of mothers or the children of mothers who took stilboestrol during pregnancy. Advice to the medical profession and to the public must therefore be directed at the appropriate assessment of patients thought to be at risk, and the ADEC has sought further expert guidance in this regard.

The delays mentioned in making a statement on this matter reflect the need to provide adequate advice. The ADEC hopes to finalise its consideration of the matter within the next few months.

It would be interesting to have the Minister explain further why we cannot use the records of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Branch to find the women for whom this drug was prescribed, and so find their children. It would be interesting to know how the medical profession is to give advice to these patients thought to be at risk if it has no way of finding the patients. But we are supposed to be fobbed off with remarks like that. No advice has been given to the public, and we do not know how the patients are to be found. Yet this drug, in over 18 different forms, is still on the pharmaceutical benefits list. More than 18 different forms of the drug currently are on chemists’ shelves, yet it is a drug that has been found to be quite useless for preventing miscarriage. It can easily be replaced by other drugs in the area for other than female use. It causes cancer in the patients and in their children. Doctors are supposed to have been advised. We are supposed to feel confident that, once the doctors have been advised of the problem, the patients need have no more worries. 1 was at a meeting of women who are afraid that they may be suffering to some extent because of the use of this drug. There were two girls at the meeting, one of whom recalled an experience when she had gone to the doctor who looked after her mother when she was pregnant. She asked the doctor whether her mother had had this drug prescribed. He said that she should not worry, that she was a silly girl, that she was worrying over these things needlessly, and that her mother had not had the drug precribed. The girl insisted. He finally got out the card, and there was the notation; the mother had been prescribed the drug. The girl now finds that she has cancer. At the same meeting another girl listened intently to this story, asked the name of the doctor concerned, and said that her mother had gone to the same doctor. She said that she had telephoned his rooms to make an appointment to see him because she wanted to check whether or not she was a sufferer. The nurse at the doctor’s rooms asked her why she wanted to see the doctor. When the girl told her, the nurse said: ‘Doctor has never prescribed that drug. You’ve no need to worry’. That girl too now finds that she has cancer. What was the point of advising only doctors? The Government obviously does not see itself as having any responsibility at all in this area, whilst in America, where the problem was first diagnosed, there is a big public campaign to alert the community to the dangers. All we ask is that people be given the chance to find out whether or not they are at risk, so that they can get treatment if they find that they have a problem.

This week in the Senate I raised the matter of toxic shock syndrome. There is considerable evidence that this medical problem is connected with the use of tampons. One brand of tampons has been withdrawn from sale in America because Americans have recognised this as being a very real problem. Extensive publicity has been given to the matter, probably because, since January 1980, 299 cases of toxic shock syndrome have been reported, 95 per cent of which were women, and 25 deaths have occurred in that time. Yesterday the Minister said:

Firstly, in relation to the whole question of toxic shock syndrome associated with tampon use, no cases have been reported in Australia. That is the first point worth making in relation to the honourable senator’s question. The tampon which is the subject of concern overseas is not sold in Australia.

For the Minister’s benefit, I point out that at least six women in Australia believe they have suffered from toxic shock syndrome. There is evidence in America that not just one brand but the whole range of tampons may be implicated. On the matter of Australian women being affected, it is interesting to note that Katherine Pitt, of the Australian Rupert Public Interest Movement, has been reported as saying:

The symptoms were there in America but were not recognised as toxic-shock syndrome until doctors were told what to look for . . . When doctors were alerted the Food and Drug Administration was flooded with reports, she says.

The FDA has suggested women may be wise to reduce or stop using tampons, and one brand called Rely - which is not sold in Australia - has been taken off the market. Federal officials in the US report that cases of the mysterious syndrome, which primarily strikes young women who use tampons, are now being reported at the rate of 20 to 25 per week.

I wish I were as confident as the Minister was on Wednesday that this problem does not exist in Australia. With that sort of evidence that there is a problem, what did we do here? Did the Government show concern and say to all women in Australia: ‘Have a care; if you use these materials you may be at risk’? Did it say: ‘Stop the sale of this material until we have investigated and made sure that it is safe for you to use these sorts of things’? Did it do any of those things? No, it did not do any of those things. A National Health and Medical Research Council spokesman has said that tampons have been used for 30 years and there are no problems. The NHMRC put out an official statement which said in essence that women should be cleaner and that perhaps they should look to their personal hygiene more than they have before. Although it stated that the problem does not exist in Australia, it also said that if women develop a fever during their menstrual period they should remove the tampon and contact a doctor. Further, it said that because of a significant recurrence rate in the disease, women who suffered the toxic shock syndrome should not use tampons again without first obtaining medical advice. In the first instance, we are told that there is no problem and that we have no need to worry at all. Then we are held responsible for the problem arising and we have the entire responsibility of dealing with the problem should it arise.

Why would a government not see these matters as urgent and give urgent advice to women? It should be remembered that in relation to this problem all mature females in Australia could be at risk each month. Such urgent advice can be given and has been given at times. Earlier this year we were advised that all women using the controversial Dalkon Shield contraceptive device would be advised by their doctors to have it removed at once. This recommendation was contained in a letter sent to all Australian general practitioners, gynaecologists and family planning clinics by A. H. Robins, a United States pharmaceutical firm that manufactured the intra-uterine device. During the early 1970s about 100,000 Australian women were fitted with this shield. Medical authorities agree that as many as 10,000 women could still be using the device. Suddenly we have the means of contacting all practitioners, all doctors in the field, and asking them to contact all their patients again. When one reads the following paragraph one realises why that is so. It states:

In the United States, Robins has paid out $69m as a result of court cases and costs and it faces a further 1 ,200 law suits.

When the pharmaceutical companies’ profits are in danger, when the firm is worried that it might be involved in court cases because people claim compensation for having been endangered by these devices, suddenly we can find the means of contacting doctors and contacting patients so that such urgent advice can be given. If manufacturers stand to lose a lot of money steps will be taken; patients can be found. Before that time nothing will be done. Nobody will take responsibility. Women in Australia are fed pills, potions and drugs. Their femininity is used to make fortunes for pharmaceutical manufacturers and the medical profession. The Australian of 1 November reported:

Analgesics are handed out to sick children at schools far too frequently and stricter guidelines are necessary, a group of medical experts has warned.

The article points out further:

Analgesics are those drugs commonly used for the treatment of headaches, toothaches, joint-aches and painful menstruation.

Females start early on the round of pills. The pharmaceutical companies make a fortune out of us through the sale of tampons, sanitary pads and numerous other materials. The medical profession makes a fortune out of us. I wish to quote from

Professor Louis Opit, Professor of social and preventive medicine at Monash University and the Alfred Hospital. He said:

Proportionately twice as many hysterectomies are performed in Australia as in Britain and nearly four times as many as in Sweden.

Yet no research is done into the problems that necessitate those hysterectomies. No research is done into whether women really need those sorts of operations. It has become fashionable for doctors to order women to have hysterectomies and we are supposed to comply. What we need is more research into the health problems of women. Why should some of the profits of such firms as Johnson and Johnson Pty Ltd, which has 80 per cent of the $100m market for these devices in Australia, not be ploughed back into research into women’s health in Australia? We need a government that shows real care for the health of its citizens - in this instance, for the health of its women. This week a report was tabled entitled ‘National fitness in Australia 1979-80’. It is no good presenting reports and talking about campaigns such as ‘Life. Be In It’ if there is no life. More has to be done in the area of good health than just encouraging people to go on fun runs. I ask the Government to take note of the two matters that I have raised and I ask that some urgent action be brought to bear on them.

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

– 1 take the opportunity of the debate on the first reading of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill No. 2 to make what I hope will be a very short speech on the subject of ‘keeping the so and so’s honest’ as a slogan, and of pious platitudes and heart on the sleeve speeches. It is reported in today’s Australian that Senator Chipp, the Leader of the Australian Democrats, imformed the Press yesterday that he was calling a national appeal to raise an estimated $12,000 for a High Court challenge in relation to certain victories of the Liberal Party in the recent election. The challenge is apparently based on the claims that Liberal Party advertisements were untrue. The allegation, as I understand it, is that our statement that a vote for the Democrats was a vote for the Australian Labor Party was untrue and unfair.

Mr President, I am sure that you will recall that in the last sitting of the Senate prior to the election the voting pattern of the members of the Democrats, during their terms in office was recorded in Hansard. That showed quite clearly that on something like 80 per cent of the occasions on which they voted they voted in support of Labor. During the election campaign Senator Chipp claimed repeatedly that most of those votes were on procedural matters and not on matters of substance and that it was an unfair statement. I have had taken out a calculation of what the voting pattern of the Australian Democrats has been since the last election. The Senate has been sitting for only two weeks and in that time there have been seven divisions. Two of those divisions were on procedural matters. One was on the suspension of Standing Orders. On that occasion both Democrats voted with the Government. The other procedural matter was on the question of Government Business taking precedence last Thursday night and on that occasion both Democrats in this chamber voted with the Opposition. However, the other five divisions were on substantive matters and on each of those five occasions the Democrats voted with the Labor Party.

Senator Evans:

– We voted with them. Some were their own motions.

Senator LEWIS:

– So on six out of seven occasions in divisions in this chamber since the election, the Democrats have voted with the Labor Party or, as Senator Evans would like me to say, the Labor Party voted with the Democrats.

Senator Puplick:

– Running dogs.

Senator LEWIS:

– Running dogs, yes. Thank you, Senator Puplick. In other words, the Senate has been sitting for only two weeks and on 85 per cent of the occasions a vote has been taken the Democrats have voted with the Labor Party. I believe that since the election it has been established once again that a vote for the Democrats in the last election was in fact a vote for the Labor Party. I hope that in due course the Democrats will find occasions when they might support the Government, but it seems as if that will be a very rare thing.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I will leave it to Senator Mason, who has come into this chamber bristling with indignation, to answer for himself on behalf of the Australian Democrats. I wish to take the opportunity afforded by this first reading of a money Bill to raise another matter which is equally irrelevant to the terms of the Bills which are technically before us. The opportunity is, of course, one afforded to us by the procedures of this place. I want to raise the matter of the share trading operations of the Negri River Corporation Ltd, which has been the subject of some Press attention in the last few weeks but, in my suggestion, not enough. The facts as presently reported regarding the issue by this company of a prospectus are disturbing. Indeed, other material which has come into my possession in the last couple of hours is even more disturbing. The facts, as I have seen them, raise once again the spectre of the manipulation of the share buying public in the circumstances of a share market boom.

The prospectus for the Negri River Corporation which was issued on 4 November this year did not contain the report of a consulting geologist, Dr Peter Solomon, dated 25 July 1979 which suggested that the two exploration leases owned by the Negri River Corporation were very unlikely to contain diamonds. Without going into detail, the geologist’s report recommended that further exploration work was unwarranted. By not including this report in the prospectus, the promoters of the company were clearly in a much better position than was the share buying public. They were in a position to form a judgment about the prospects of the exploration leases which other shareholders were unable to make.

It is therefore disturbing that the original leaseholders at Negri River have been allocated, directly or indirectly, three and a half million shares, or half the total issued capital of the company. It is also of concern that at least one of those original leaseholders, a company owned by Sir Asher Joel- Design and Construction Pty Ltd - has reportedly already sold sufficient of its holding to enable it to recover Sir Asher’s original investment, plus an unknown amount of profit. I understand that the other original leaseholders, with the exception of Mr Graham Beith, whom I shall mention again in a moment, have also traded, no doubt profitably, in the shares of the company. This action was made possible by the fact that the shares issued by the company at a value of 20c each have been traded on the stock exchange since 20 November at up to $2 each based, of course, on a market which has been denied significant information in relation to the value of the company’s assets.

I do not claim, by the way, that the information contained in the Solomon report is necessarily conclusive. There is in existence another report from a reputable geologist which suggests that the areas in question might in fact contain diamonds. The point is that when there is in existence a geologist’s report of this kind with negative findings it is of crucial relevance to the capacity of individual shareholders to make decisions as to the risk of their investment. The New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission is now investigating the company. It is not yet possible to draw any final conclusions about the matters raised in this case which are known to this extent on the public record. However, I raise it here as a further warning to the share-buying public, if the message has not already sunk in through Press reports.

I now make some further points. The first is of a general but very important character. Although the last share market boom from 1 967 to 1 972 was accompanied by significant instances of malpractice of a now familiar kind and although a very detailed report on these matters was prepared by the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, under the chairmanship of Senator Georges at one stage and then Senator Rae, we have yet to enact the co-operative companies and securities legislation and actually commence the work of the National Companies and Securities Commission. It is unlikely that this legislation and this administrative operation will be under way before the middle of next year. Indeed, it is regrettable that the Government continues to appear to afford it a very low priority. Maybe that is a function of the co-operative federalist character of this enterprise, an aspect of it which I and other Opposition members have been highly critical of since this exercise in co-operative federalism in the company context was set in train. We take the view that it would be far better, quicker and more effective for Commonwealth legislation to operate in this area on a unilateral basis, but be that as it may. Accordingly, there remains very little constraint on the activities of the companies and securities industry operators, despite the existence of the State corporate affairs commissions.

There is now a very heated situation in the Australian stock market, fuelled by the massive inflow of capital into Australia, which has, let it be said, been encouraged by the present Government.

The scale of the current share market boom already rivals that of the late 1960s boom. Share market indices for ordinary shares approximately doubled over two years between 1967 and 1969. We have witnessed a similar doubling of the ordinary indices over the past two years, from 1978 to 1980. Not surprisingly, we are beginning to see a return of the speculative float - not in nickel this time but in diamonds.

The other matter 1 raise is of a more specific character in relation to this exercise. 1 am advised that one of the key issues involved in the Negri River matter is in fact directly relevant to, bears directly upon and is significant because of the failure of the Government to establish the legal powers of the National Companies and Securities Commission. One matter which will be crucial in unravelling the truth lying behind the present Negri River exercise and which will be unravelled in this way depends on there being in existence investigative powers which do not at the moment appear to be legally available to anyone.

The instigator of the Negri River exploration leases was Graham John Beith. Initially Mr Beith formed a syndicate with two other men. David Lance and Campbell Cooper. Beith commissioned a geologist. Dr Peter Solomon of International Resource Consultants Pty Ltd, to prepare the report produced in 1 979 to which I have already referred. However, a dispute arose within the syndicate at about that time, the ultimate effect of which, without going into details, was to change the syndicate arrangements and produce a situation in which Beith sold all but a 15 per cent interest in the leases. Among other things, a company of Sir Asher Joel obtained a further 15 per cent interest. In addition, the Joel interests came to hold the 1 5 per cent Beith interest by way of a share trust arrangement. Pursuant to that arrangement - this is the nub of the matter - the solicitors of Sir Asher Joel, a firm called Lane and Lane, took possession, I am advised, of all the papers and documents belonging to Graham Beith. These papers were obtained from Beith’s then acting solicitor by, I understand, a letter of authority. The point in issue is just what that bundle of papers and documents included and whether it ever came into the hands of Sir Asher Joel or his professional agents and advisers.

Mr Beith claims that the papers in question, which were handed over some considerable time ago and certainly long before the float of the Negri River Corporation, included the Solomon geological report. This is now denied by the solicitors firm of Lane and Lane. On the question of whether the Solomon report was handed over with these papers depends the whole credibility of the claim by the Negri River Corporation that the Solomon report was unknown to it at the time of the float.

Senator Puplick:

– Didn’t Beith ask for $10,000 for it?

Senator EVANS:

– That is perfectly true. He is asking for $10,000 now as a condition of Beith himself making that report public. Beith is working on the assumption that the report is in the possession of the Negri River Corporation people but they are denying that because to acknowledge that it is in their possession would create the very legitimate inference that that report was in their possession at the time of the float.

The incredible situation which arises from all this is that we seem to be, I am advised, quite unable to ascertain as a matter of legal powers of investigation what exactly happened to these papers and, in particular, the report. Had the National

Companies and Securities Commission commenced its operation and had the powers available to it under the new securities industry legislation which is proposed, I am advised that it would have been able to inspect all the documents involved, the papers and files of the parties involved and make some appropriate determination of where the truth lies. But I am also advised that such an inspection is not, as the law now stands - I acknowledge to the chamber that I personally have not had an opportunity in the few minutes available to me to check this out - presently possible under the limited statutory powers available to’ the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission for such an investigation or inspection of this issue, which is of crucial importance, to take place. Indeed, as a result the truth may never be known.

I conclude by saying that it will be tragic if, once again, the opportunity afforded to Australia as a result of its fortuitous endowment of natural resources is squandered as it was in the late 1960s boom, by speculators and others whose principal interest was not the creation of national wealth but rather the pursuit of the fast buck. It has taken the securities industry in Australia a very long time to recover from the battering it experienced in that last boom. The important role of the securities industry in generating the capital that we certainly will need to develop our resources must not again be damaged by the sharp practices of insiders and promoter of speculative floats. The immediate lesson of the case involving the Negri River Corporation is that all the vaunted recent improvements to the States’ own companies legislation do not appear to amount to a row of beans when one has, as appears to be so in this case, people who are prepared unscrupulously to manipulate the market on the basis of insider information which is unavailable to the public and investors at large.

This whole business is a case which must be investigated further, not only by the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission, which I understand is doing its best to grope its way through the morass of detail at the moment, but also by the new National Companies and Securities Commission, as being a classic case study of what appears to be the kind of misuse of the securities market which only rigorous new national legislation will prevent.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– Only a few minutes ago Senator Lewis saw fit to debase a useful debate - indeed, it has been a useful debate, today, dealing with matters of public concern - by returning to his party’s preoccupation with dirty politics and muck raking and further attempting, at a time when the proceedings are being broadcast, to mislead the Australian public by making statements which he knows only too well to be not true. He has even more disgracefully used parliamentary privilege to try to further that situation by communicating to the public a matter which he knows is in dispute and on which he knows he is perfectly safe. I suggest to him now that he go outside this place and make to the Press a statement to that effect and see what reaction he will get. That is a direct challenge to you, Senator Lewis - have a go and see. what happens.

Government senators interjecting -

Senator MASON:

– Liberal Party senators are very anxious to prevent me from saying this at a time when the proceedings are being broadcast. They are frightened. I can see that they are scared. It is showing on the faces of every senator who is sitting opposite. But I insist on my right to tell the public - it ought to know - that many thousands of decisions in this Senate are not put to divisions. I repeat that: Many thousands of decisions in this Senate are not put to divisions. I say again - this is the second point, and I can see that it is really worrying honourable senators opposite; they can see the writing on the wall for them - that the reason a matter is put to a division is that there is a significant degree of opposition to a government proposal. That is the fact of the matter. There are two Australian Democrats in the Senate. We can at any time we wish under the Standing Orders call for a division.

Senator Lewis:

– Can you?

Senator MASON:

– Indeed we can. If we wished to oppose the Government on any decision whatsoever we would take that action. The truth of the matter is that in the advertising and again in Senator Lewis’s comments today, there has been an attempt to communicate to the public a situation, as he will find in due course when the records are available - indeed, they will become available - that is quite untrue, misleading and incorrect in terms of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The matter is not yet sub judice so I can still refer to the scurrilous and deliberate campaign of lying advertising which the Liberal Party used in Western Australia and with which, in addition to the donkey vote, it was able to limp home with the smallest Senate majority in Australia’s history. Apparently the Liberals felt they had defeated our candidate by 560 votes instead of more than half a million. I will not go into the personalities of the persons concerned because the people of this nation are sufficiently well aware of whether Jack Evans or Noel Crichton-Browne ought to be senators in this place. I do not have to go into that; the facts are well known.

I wish to deal with another point that Senator Lewis raised, and that is the question of money. He took exception to the fact that we in the Australian Democrats have publicly asked for support in this matter. Of course we should ask the public for support in this matter. We are challenging a question of law that has never before been challenged. We do not have slush funds in the same volume as the Liberal Party has. During a strike of journalists, late at night at the end of a session when the Government thought nobody would know about it, it abolished a whole section of the Commonwealth Electoral Act which required accountability in respect of electoral funds. That section had been in the Act since its founders put it there in 1901 and this Government, like a thief in the night, just before the election, destroyed that section which is the property of the people of this country. It managed this by its use of numbers. There was no reason or justification other than a desire to fill its own slush funds with money. That is why it was possible for the Government to place those full page scurrilous advertisements in Western Australian newspapers. Of course that was the reason!

We will continue to appeal to the public for support on this matter. We do not have any slush fund. Any donation of more than $2,000 to the Australian Democrats is subject to public disclosure. I suggest that Senator Lewis should look for the beam in his eye and get his party’s rotten machinery back to the stage where it has again credibility in the eyes of the public and a bit of support because it certainly has not that now. The point I am trying to make to Government senators now is that they had the money. They have allowed their party to be corrupt to the extent where it can get all that it wants to do that kind of thing. If they were not like that they would accept this public accountability clause, the provisions of which would apply to their friends. They would appear to be honest. They do not even try to appear to be honest.

We are appealing now to the public for money and we will continue to appeal to the public for money. We do so in the cause of justice. I am delighted to say to Senator Lewis that we are already getting a big response to our appeal and it will be bigger still. As a result of this dialogue in the Senate, I have no doubt that it will grow even further. So, Senator Lewis might have achieved just that for us. If so, we owe him our thanks. I make the point again that we retain our right to appeal to the public of this country and to say to the people: ‘Here is a law of this country which has been broken flagrantly again and again by politicians, the people who make law. They have no reason to claim a special privilege. I would have thought it was the other way around, that is, that those of us who are here to make law ought to abide by that law, not seek to skirt around that law. It is possible that Senator Lewis might win his case but he knows damn well that if he does he will win it by dishonest means.

Finally, I make the point that the Australian Democrats obviously entered into this action with some trepidation. Of course we did. But we did it because of what the Government first said. We gave a pledge to the people of this country on the basis of honesty and we got over three quarters of a million votes for that promise. We believe that it would be less than honest for us to enter into this action. We see in Western Australia a flagrant breach of the law. That is how it appears to us. We have every right to put our argument forward and to have it tested. For honourable senators opposite to come into this place and to talk under privilege, as they cringe around and pretend that somehow they should apply pressure on us here to prevent us taking our obvious plain rights under law, to me is almost intolerable. I think that on the whole perhaps Senator Lewis has done our cause no harm and I thank him for that.

page 471

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

- Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented. In the course of his speech, Senator Mason said that the figures I gave to the Senate were untrue. The Senate records will disclose that, in the course of this two week sitting of Parliament, the Senate has divided on seven occasions and on six of those seven occasions the two Democrats - Senator Chipp and Senator Mason - have voted with the Opposition, against the Government. So, on six out of seven occasions, they voted against us. Senator Mason said that the figures I quoted to the Senate were untrue. That statement is untrue. The figures I quoted to the Senate are accurate.

Senator Mason:

– Mr President, I would like to make one brief point.

The PRESIDENT:

– No. I call Senator Chaney.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Social Security · LP

– I take the opportunity presented by this debate to clarify a point arising out of Question Time this morning. I do so as I do not wish to do a citizen an injustice. This morning I was asked a question by Senator McLaren which referred to a specific person who is in some way associated with the Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd and the restitution of an amount of money. I indicated that I would regard the question as being on notice and seek a reply. 1 prefaced that answer by saying that this was a matter on which I could recall that there had been a number of questions and speeches. I said that 1 thought there was a Senate inquiry and a police inquiry. 1 would like to make it quite clear that there is a Senate inquiry and a police inquiry into certain aspects of this matter. I did not mean to imply that there was a police inquiry into the aspect of the matter raised by the honourable senator in his question or into the matter which related to the Mr Webster who was mentioned. I would like to clarify that for the sake of Mr Webster.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I thought for a moment that the Minister was going to close or adjourn the debate.

Senator McAuliffe:

– He is not the Minister in charge of the debate; Senator Messner is in charge.

Senator GEORGES:

– He could have moved the gag or done something of that sort. That is what I was afraid of. Briefly, I support what Senator Evans had to say concerning the Negri River Corporation Ltd matter. What he described had all the marks of a debate that took place right back in 1968. If, as he said, the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission has neither the power nor the facilities to carry out an immediate investigation, if the new national Corporate Affairs Commission is not able to investigate this matter expeditely it ought to be suggested or perhaps moved that at an early date we reconstitute the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange to investigate this sort of practice, a practice which was familiar to the Committee during its investigations.

It seems to me that what Senator Evans was saying is correct, that the securities industry in Australia is threatened with abuse. That abuse will lead to discredit which, in turn, will lead to lack of support. Far be it from me to support the system that we have for raising funds to develop both our manufacturing industries and our mining industries. Nevertheless, since the system is as it is, let us see that it is kept honest. Otherwise many people will suffer, much damage will be done to our credibility and this will lead to a distortion in our economic system. I briefly indicate that I feel strongly on the matter. I do not doubt that Senator Rae would look upon the eight years we sat on that Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange as wasted if we were to have a repetition as has been described in the Senate this afternoon.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a first time.

Second Readings

Senator MESSNER:
South AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows -

Customs Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1980

This Bill forms part of a package of measures to give legislative effect to the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement. The other parts of the package are the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980 and the proposed Part X of Schedule 5 to the Customs Tariff Act 1966, which will be introduced by a Tariff Alteration Notice prior to 1 January 1981. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Customs Act 1901 to incorporate in that Act the rules for determining the origin of goods the manufacture of island member countries of the South Pacific Forum. The Government is taking this action following the signing of the Agreement by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on behalf of Australia, at the Eleventh Meeting of the South Pacific Forum on 14 July 1980.

The Agreement is a preferential non-reciprocal agreement between Australia and New Zealand on the one hand and the island member countries of the South Pacific Forum on the other. The prime objective of this Agreement, which will enter into force on 1 January 1981, is to achieve progressive duty-free and unrestricted access to the markets of Australia over as wide a range of Forum island products as possible. To this end the Agreement provides a framework within which Australia can extend unrestricted duty-free or concessional access to its market for specified products from the Forum island countries. The Agreement contains safeguard provisions for Australia’s domestic industries as well as provisions to encourage and facilitate economic and technical co-operation to assist the economic development of the Forum islands. The Agreement is expected to prove a major step forward in the development of our relations with the South Pacific and in strengthening our political bonds with the Forum islands. It reflects the importance of Australian markets for those countries and

Australia’s responsibility to assist them in their economic development.

The new rules of origin for Forum island countries contained in this Bill will allow certain specified goods originating in those countries to be accorded more advantageous tariff preference than the preference currently accorded to them under the rates of duty applying to goods from developing countries. Those goods which are now free of duty under the developing country preference rates will continue to be free if originating in Forum island countries. The goods to which the Agreement applies will be listed in the proposed Part X of Schedule 5 to the Customs Tariff Act 1 966, as will rates of duty applicable to those goods. I commend the Bill to honourable, senators.

Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980

This Bill, which is complementary to the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1980, amends the Customs Tariff Act 1966, and provides a further part of the legislative framework, for the implementation of the tariff preference arrangements contained in the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement. The main purposes of the Bill are to insert a new section 12 into the Customs Tariff Act providing for the Minister to declare a country or place specified in an order to be a Forum island country, and to insert a new Part into Schedule 5 to the principal Act relating to goods from Forum island countries.

The preferential rates of duty to apply to the specified goods from those countries will be introduced initially by a Gazette notice of intention to propose a customs tariff alteration. This notice which will be notified in the Gazette prior to I January 1981, will propose the insertion of a new Part X of Schedule 5 to the Customs Tariff Act and will cover goods falling within some 300 tariff classifications. The majority of those goods will be admitted free of duty. However, any goods, which if produced in Australia would be subject to duties of excise, will attract a rate of duty equivalent to that excise rate of duty. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned.

page 473

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS (GRANTS) 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 Messner) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator MESSNER:
South AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act 1980 to implement the Government’s election commitment to extend the $80 per tonne subsidy on LPG. This objective is to be realised by extending the subsidy from 30 September 1980 to commercial and industrial consumers in areas where natural gas is not readily available for use. In April of this year, the Government introduced a scheme to subsidise the use of LPG by householders, nonprofit residential-type institutions and schools for a period of three years to allow them time to adjust to the rising prices of LPG and, where possible, to convert from LPG to more readily available alternative fuels such as natural gas and electricity.

In introducing this scheme, the Government was particularly mindful of the interests of householders and similar consumers of LPG in country districts, whilst at the same time recognising that Australia’s increasing dependence on imported oil during the 1980s will give LPG a premium value as a fuel for automotive use and as a petrochemical feedstock. LPG is important to the nation’s future transport fuel requirements and so it is the Government’s wish that its use not be encouraged if alternative fuels are available. The Government is aware, however, of the disadvantage suffered by users who are dependent on LPG, relative to their counterparts in those areas where there is access to natural gas. Accordingly, the subsidy will be extended to consumers in industry and commerce, broadly defined, to allow those consumers time to adjust and, where possible, to convert to alternative fuels. It is intended that in some areas such as Newcastle and Canberra, the subsidy will operate until the advent of natural gas reticulation, at which time the subsidy in those areas will be terminated.

Clause 5 of the Bill will provide for the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Moore) to declare those areas in which natural gas is available and thus ineligible for the subsidy. Areas to be so declared will include Sydney, WollongongPort Kembla, Melbourne, Geelong and Adelaide.

There are other areas such as Perth and Brisbane where natural gas is not available in all locations or to all users, and those will receive special examination. This Bill will not affect the position of householders, non-profit residential-type institutions and schools as they will continue to be eligible for the subsidy regardless of location.

The petrochemical industry is concerned primarily with maintaining the adequacy of supply of Australian-sourced LPG and the Government supports this objective. Accordingly, it is appropriate for users in that industry, and users engaged in oil and gas production and refining, to be expected to purchase their supplies at prices negotiated freely with the LPG producers. It is intended by the Government, therefore, that the subsidy will not be extended to those users. Industries ineligible for the subsidy will be declared by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs under proposed section 3A to be inserted by Clause 5 of the Bill. Automotive use will remain ineligible for the subsidy except when the gas is used in the propulsion of a fork-lift truck or a similar factory or warehouse vehicle.

I emphasise that the Government is determined that the extension of the subsidy should not encourage the large scale use of LPG by new users, and to this end will keep a close watch on future developments. The Government is of the view that industries considering significant increases in their uses of LPG for such purposes as material processing, must make their assessment of LPG and the alternative energy sources at the full market price.

Payment of the subsidy to registered distributors will continue to be conditional in all cases upon the benefit of the subsidy being passed on to the consumer. It is estimated that the extended subsidy, which will terminate on 28 March 1983, will cost $ 1 3m per annum.

The Bill provides in Clause 10 for the automatic amendment of schemes already formulated under the Act so as to allow early implementation. Complementary amending legislation will need to be introduced later by each State to fully develop the necessary schemes and administrative details. As the basic machinery already exists for the administration of the subsidy, I believe there will be little difficulty in administering the extension. Clause 8 of the Bill is a minor machinery amendment to allow the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to appoint approved persons by reference to the office or class of persons so appointed. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned.

page 474

CHRISTMAS ISLAND AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

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

Second Readings

Senator MESSNER:
South AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows -

Christmas Island Amendment Bill 1980

This Bill is identical with the Christmas Island Amendment Bill 1980 which was introduced on 18 September 1980 and which lapsed on dissolution of the House of Representatives on 19 September 1 980. The purpose of this Bill is to introduce new citizenship provisions into the Christmas Island Act 1958. These provisions will enable persons not already Australian citizens, who were ordinarily resident in Christmas Island immediately before its transfer to Australia, who are now ordinarily resident in Australia or an external Territory to take up Australian citizenship, if they so wish.

The Bill brings the citizenship provisions of the Christmas Island Act into line with those of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act as amended last year. Under the existing legislation persons who were over 21 years of age at the time Australia accepted responsibility for the Island on 1 October 1958 had a choice of making a declaration to become Australian citizens in a period of two years from that date. This provision expired on 1

October 1960. Persons who were under 21 years of age at 1 October 1958 were able to make a declaration to become Australian citizens two years after attaining the age of 21 years. The value of this provision expires on 1 October 1 98 1 . Persons born in Christmas Island on or after 1 October 1 958 are automatically Australian citizens.

The report of the commission of inquiry into the viability of the Christmas Island phosphate industry recommended that the citizenship provisions of the Christmas Island Act be repealed. The Government’s decision reflected in this Bill goes against that recommendation which would take away an existing right. Because Australia has a special responsibility towards the inhabitants of the Island at the time Australia assumed responsibility for the Territory, the Government has decided not only to retain the citizenship provisions in question for the benefit of residents still eligible but also to extend them.

The Bill extends the right to Australian citizenship to persons who resided on the Island on 1 October 1958 and either failed to opt within the prescribed time or were ineligible on account of not being British subjects, providing these persons are now still on the Island or reside in another Australian external Territory or on the Australian mainland. The new provisions will become effective on a date to be fixed by proclamation and will have no time limit.

It is estimated that in addition to the 80 or so persons still in Christmas Island, a further 200 former Island residents now in Australia, mostly in Western Australia, will benefit from the effects of the Bill. This is one of several decisions taken recently by the Government for the benefit of the Christmas Island residents, as announced in June of this year.

It is proposed, as a result of these decisions also to extend the Migration Act 1958 to the Island, whereby, among other things, Island residents will be granted permanent resident status in Australia and will as a result be able to apply for Australian citizenship under the Citizenship Act 1 948 which already applies in the Territory. Other legislation will deal with industrial appeals from Christmas Island.

Migration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980

The provisions of this Bill are designed, firstly, to restrict by law the categories of immigrants eligible to be granted permanent residence subsequent to their arrival in Australia and, secondly, extend the application of the Migration Act to the territory of Christmas Island and confer permanent resident status on island workers and their families. On 19 June 1980 the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee) announced or foreshadowed a number of initatives directed towards implementing the Government’s intention to continue to increase legal migration to Australia and at the same time to curtail illegal migration by removing its principal incentive - the prospect of entering as a visitor and subsequently gaining the right of legal permanent residence here.

People unable to meet Australia’s normal immigration requirements have continued to come to Australia as visitors and subsequently seek resident status, frequently enlisting the support of members of parliament, the media, ethnic communities and other voluntary organisations. Such changes of status have been against Government policy but were legally possible. Many thousands of people who could not satisfy normal migration policy requirements deliberately overstayed and remained illegally. Often years later such persons would seek change of status arguing that they had become so integrated in the Australian community that they must be deemed to be constituent members of it.

As it is known that the Migration Act provides for ministerial discretion to be exercised in all such cases, the pressures on the Minister and the Department have been considerable and unremitting with enormous involvement of staff resources in examining requests to sanction breaches of policy. As the policy has been reaffirmed a law is now needed to enforce the policy. An unenforceable policy relieved by amnesties is a situation which produces inequities, especially regarding those persons who accept the verdict that they do not qualify for migration and do not seek to circumvent that policy. Moreover, resident status is so prized as to make people ready prey for unscrupulous persons who claim to be able to influence decisions. People are often exploited by others when they seek change of status contrary to policy.

Cases which have involved more than 20 consecutive appeals to the Minister or his Department against a refusal to approve permanent residence are not uncommon. In some instances the number of individual representations run into the hundreds. Typically, these cases involve people who, had they applied overseas, would have been quite properly rejected as being totally unable to meet the usual immigration policies and criteria. The only way in which this abuse of the discretionary powers of the Migration Act can be overcome is to limit the types of cases for which change of status - that is the grant of legal permanent residence - may be approved.

The Bill will limit the categories of persons eligible to be granted change of status to territorial asylees; the spouses, unmarried children or aged parents of an Australian citizen or other permanent resident; refugees; certain persons holding temporary entry permits with permission to work here who meet migration criteria; and other persons holding temporary entry permits where there are strong compassionate or humanitarian grounds involved. The effect of this change will be to preclude, in future, the grant of permanent resident status to the great majority of those who have in the past entered and remained illegally in Australia. To reinforce these legislative changes there will be a strengthening of control measures against future illegal and prohibited migration.

There will, however, be no change in the existing discretionary powers under the Act to approve applications for migration. Those who do not fall within the deliberately restricted categories for whom change of status can in future be approved will still be able to have their cases approved provided they apply overseas and meet entry requirements. There will be no advantage and indeed a very serious disadvantage if they attempt to beat the system by coming to Australia as visitors and failing to leave because, as soon as they are detected, deportation action will be taken in accordance with the law.

In deciding to introduce this Bill the Government recognised that Australia already had many thousands of prohibited immigrants in the community. The numbers have been building up over a period of years, particularly since the ‘easy visa’ system for tourists was introduced in 1973. This system which was widely abused, was later abandoned but the problems it accentuated remained. No one could have realistically or responsibly suggested that we should seek out, detain and deport every prohibited immigrant in Australia. Many have been here for years. Some for 30 years or more. They have established themselves and for practical purposes have become part of the community. Others have close family ties which could not reasonably be ignored.

The Government, therefore, decided that, subject to their being of reasonable health and character, these people should be granted legal permanent residence. At the same time the Government considered that people who were here legally but temporarily should not be treated less favourably than those who were here illegally, if they wished to remain here. It is for this reason that, on 19 June 1980 the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs announced the Regularisation of Status Program which has been widely decribed as an amnesty. In a very real sense it is, but it is something more than an amnesty because it also applies to persons legally here.

The conditions of ROSP are simple and straightforward. Anyone who arrived in Australia before 1 January 1980 either legally or illegally and who was still here when ROSP was announced is eligible to apply for permanent residence provided that he or she applies before 1 January 1981. In addition, those who arrived here on or after 1 January 1980 and were still here when ROSP was announced are eligible provided they had applied for permanent residence prior to 1 9 June 1 980 and they were legally in Australia on 19 June 1980 or when their previous application was lodged. Persons who are in this category must apply for permanent residence after 19 June 1980 and before 1 January 1 98 1 .

Only three groups are not eligible to apply for permanent residence in Australia under ROSP. The first group are persons who, as at 19 June 1980, have been ordered deported under sections 1 2 or 1 3 of the Migration Act or as prohibited immigrants under sections 16 and 18 of that Act. The second group are diplomats and other members of overseas missions in Australia including their household staff and families. The third group are those covered by the overseas student program.

I am pleased to say that both the English language and ethnic media - Press, radio and television - have given strong editorial and other support to ROSP. This support has been strongly reinforced by ethnic community leaders both individually and through the various councils and conferences. By 21 November approximately 20,000 inquiries had been received and almost 1 2,000 ROSP applications had been given out to people inquiring personally. Over 10,000 applications have been lodged covering at least 1 2,500 people and 7,600 have already been interviewed. Because of the time inevitably involved in making overseas character checks, the numbers approved at this stage are still relatively small but over 1,000 have been approved and this number will grow with increasing rapidity. To date only one case has been rejected. As the Minister has stated, only he can reject a ROSP application and he will do so only if it involves very serious health or character problems.

Some concern has also been expressed in cases where a person’s political beliefs may affect their chance of approval under ROSP. I repeat to the Senate an assurance which the Minister has given publicly to ethnic community representatives. No person will be rejected under ROSP because of his or her political beliefs. If, however, a person expresses his or her political belief through acts of violence then the seriousness of these acts of violence - bul not the political views which underlie them - will be a factor in deciding whether or not their case is approved. Finally, I would stress that if people are to benefit from the provisions of ROSP it is essential that they apply before 1 January 1981. If they do not, it will be too late. 1 now turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill which concern the limitations on the grant of permanent residence to persons who have already entered Australia. Clause 6 inserts a new section 6a which will prohibit the grant of permanent residence to an immigrant subsequent to arrival in Australia, unless

  1. he has been granted territorial asylum in Australia;
  2. he is the spouse, unmarried child or aged parent of an Australian citizen or of the holder of an entry permit for permanent residence in Australia;
  3. he is the holder of a temporary entry permit and the Minister has determined he is a refugee within the meaning of the United Nations convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees;
  4. he is the holder of a temporary entry permit and there are strong compassionate or humanitarian grounds for the grant of permanent residence to him; or;

  5. he is the holder of a temporary entry permit, is authorised to work in Australia and is not

    1. a person who acknowledged when seeking a visa for travel to Australia that he would leave Australia on the completion of his studies or training or is the spouse or child of such a person; or
    2. a foreign diplomat or consular representative, a member of the staff of such a representative or the spouse or dependant relative of such a representative or staff member.

The new sub-sections 6a (2) and (3) provide that only the Minister may grant permanent residence to territorial asylees and that only the Minister or an officer specifically authorised by him may grant permanent residence to persons falling within the remaining categories of persons eligible for consideration for permanent residence. Subsection 6a (4) defines the terms ‘aged parent’ and child’. An ‘aged parent’ will mean a person who is eligible for an age pension under the Social Services Act 1947, that is, 65 years in the case of males and 60 years in the case of females. A child will mean an unmarried child of the person who has not attained 1 8 years of age or an unmarried child between 18 and 21 years whom the Minister determines is an integral part of the family of an Australian citizen or permanent resident. Clause 11 is a transitional provision which will ensure that the restrictions contained in the new section 6a will not prevent the grant of permanent residence to persons who are eligible for permanent residence under the Government’s Regularisation of Status Program.

As 1 stated earlier, the Bill will also extend the Migration Act to the Australian Territory of Christmas Island. As honourable senators will know, Christmas Island has been a territory under the authority of the Commonwealth since 1958 when it was accepted by Australia from the United Kingdom. Entry to Christmas Island has been controlled under the Territory’s immigration ordinance and has not been subject to the same rules and regulations as apply to entry to the mainland. There is no indigenous population on the island. Workers in the island’s phosphate industry have been recruited mainly from South East Asia. At present there are about 1 ,500 people in the island’s work force.

In December 1979 the Government established a commission of inquiry into the viability of the Christmas Island phosphate industry. The report of that commission, which also dealt with immigration and citizenship matters, was tabled by the then Minister for Administrative Services on 20 February 1980. Flowing from consideration of the report, the Government took a number of decisions in relation to the Territory. These were announced by the then Minister for Home Affairs on 26 June 1980. One of the Government’s decisions was that the Christmas Island Immigration Ordinance 1955 be repealed and that the Migration Act be extended to the island.

The Bill provides that for the purpose of the Migration Act the Territory of Christmas Island will become part of Australia and workers and their dependants on the island will acquire permanent residence in Australia. They will be free to move to Australia and live there if they so desire. The extension of the Act to the Island therefore, will give island workers and their families greater security. In future, entry to Christmas Island from abroad will be regulated in the same way as entry to Australia. People seeking entry to the island from overseas for temporary or permanent residence will be required to satisfy the same policies and procedures as people seeking to enter Australia.

The Bill provides that every person who is present on the island immediately before the extension of the Act will be deemed for the purpose of the Act to have entered Australia as an immigrant. Exceptions to the deemed entry will be made in respect of Australian citizens, persons who have ceased to be immigrants under the Migration Act and crew members of overseas vessels in port immediately before the commencing date. The deemed entry provision will enable appropriate entry permits to be issued to Christmas Island workers and their dependants on the island to evidence their right to permanent residence in Australia.

Clause 1 2 of the Bill will also ensure that persons who are present in the Territory without authority on the commencing date may be deported as prohibited immigrants. Paragraph 1 2 (4) (a) provides that entry permits will be granted to relevant residents permitting them to remain permanently in Australia, including Christmas Island. The term ‘relevant resident’ is defined by sub-clause 12(15) to mean a person who was present in the Territory immediately before the commencing date and who

  1. was or had been, immediately before that date, employed on the island by the British Phosphate Commissioners, the Christmas Island Phosphate Company Ltd or by the Minister under the administration ordinance; or
  2. was, at any time before the commencing date, wholly or partly dependent upon a person who was so employed.

The term ‘relevant resident’ will thus include present and former Christmas Island workers and their dependants who are present on the island immediately before the commencing date. Subclause 12 (7) makes provision for a person who would, but for his absence from the Territory on the commencing date, be entitled to permanent residence. Such a person will be entitled, upon request, to permanent residence in Australia unless he has been convicted of certain serious crimes or was deported from Australia or deported or excluded from another country. Those who do not automatically qualify for permanent residence will have to meet normal migration requirements.

Provision is made in clause 1 2 (4) (b) for visitors to Christmas Island, who are lawfully present on the island on the commencing date, to be granted temporary entry permits permitting them to remain in Australia for the same period for which they had been authorised under the territory ordinance to remain on the island. Special provision is made in clause 1 3 to ensure that the normal immigration requirements applicable to vessels and crew members will apply to vessels in port on Christmas Island on the commencing date. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Immigration (Unauthorized Arrivals) Amendment Bill 1980

The purpose of this Bill is to extend the application of the Immigration (Unauthorized Arrivals) Act 1980 to the Territory of Christmas Island. The principal Act is designed to discourage the operators of vessels from conveying to Australia large numbers of persons who do not possess proper documentation for travel to Australia. The offence provisions of that Act hinge on the possession of visas and return endorsements issued under the Migration Act. The Migration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980 will extend the Migration Act to the Territory of Christmas Island and consequently the way is now open to extend the Immigration (Unauthorized Arrivals) Act to the Island.

The principal Act, which is not yet in force, may be brought into operation on a date proclaimed by the Governor-General. While the situation remains stable, the Government does not propose to proclaim the commencement of the Act. Honourable senators will appreciate, however, that unless the Act is available on Christmas Island there would be a weakness in Australia’s ability to discourage unauthorised refugee boat arrivals. This Bill will overcome that weakness.

Clause 3 of the Bill amends the definition section of the Act by redefining the term ‘officer’ to enable the Minister to appoint persons on the Island to carry out the functions and duties imposed upon officers by the Act and makes a number of other minor amendments consequential upon the extension of the Act to the Island. Clause 4 of the Bill extends the Act to the Territory of Christmas Island and provides that the Island shall be deemed to be part of Australia and not a place outside Australia. Clause 5 makes a number of machinery amendments to section 4 of the principal Act, which defines the vessels that are subject to the provisions of the Act. The effect of the amendments will be that if a vessel arrives in Christmas Island, departs, and then arrives in mainland Australia, separate offences, which attract the substantial penalties contained in the Act, will be committed in respect of each arrival. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned.

page 479

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 6) 1980

Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that it has agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill.

page 479

BARLEY RESEARCH BILL 1980 BARLEY RESEARCH LEVY BILL 1980

Second Readings

Debate resumed.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– 1 wish to speak only briefly to the Barley Research Bill 1980 and the Barley Research Levy Bill 1980. They are not opposed by the Australian Labor Party. The Bills strike a levy which will be paid into a national fund financed by barley industry research. The funds collected in each State will be spent in each State. These Bills apply to the barley industry similar research and research funding arrangements to those which have applied to the wheat industry for something like 30 years and which have applied on a State basis in many of the barley producing States for some decades. The general view of the Opposition about agricultural research expenditure in Australia is that it almost certainly pays good dividends although it is difficult, of course, to establish beyond any doubt that that is the case. As is the custom with research levies of this nature the funds will be paid into a trust account. Payments made from the trust account will be matched on a dollar for dollar basis by a Commonwealth subsidy. It is expected that the research program will commence in 1981-82.

Senator MESSNER:
South AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– in reply - I thank Senator Walsh for his brief discussion of this legislation, and I wish the Bills a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 479

DAIRYING INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND PROMOTION LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I will be equally as brief in speaking to this Bill as I was when dealing with the barley research legislation. The purpose of the Bill is to increase the maximum rate of levy which may be struck on milk, whether it is marketed as liquid milk for consumption as liquid milk or whether it is marketed for manufacturing purposes. The present maximum rate of levy under the existing legislation is 0.6 cents per 100 litres if the product is destined for the liquid milk market, or $1.50 per 100 kilograms of butterfat if it is destined for the manufacturing sector of the industry. The maximum levy permitted under this Bill doubles those rates, although initially it is expected that the full rate permitted by the new legislation will not be struck. The funds so obtained are used both for promotion of milk on the domestic market and for research, and the Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– I would also like to make a few brief comments on this Bill. I will not go over the basic details of the Bill, which have been stated already by Senator Walsh. I believe that the time is opportune for honourable senators to look back a little at what has happened and at the state of the industry generally. I congratulate the industry for having come to where it is now from where it was when I first came here in 1976. The industry at large deserves great credit for having gone along with what was very largely an inevitable situation at the time. It was a disaster situation. I think that if we looked back at the report of the Industries Assistance Commission we would find that the recommendations put down were fundamentally right, and that the Government and the industry generally have seen that the recommendations have been carried out. The industry has done its part, and the Government has also done its part. In the main, the Government was able to retard inflation, to retard cost prices, to get the currency back to a reasonable value and to enable export markets to pick up as a result, and it provided underwriting to ensure the returns.

The industry also has changed a great deal. Many farmers who could see other opportunities to go into industries that would provide them with a better way of life and a slightly easier situation have taken those opportunities. Many farmers have gone out of the industry, and others have strengthened their position. However, there is still one major conflict of interest. Producers are still seeking to obtain as much milk as possible, so that they can raise their throughput and lower their operating costs per kilogram. On the other hand, the farmers need to get the quantity of milk down to a level that will enable them to obtain the highest possible price for it. In Tasmania, of course, we are still lamenting the drop in production, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, we are taking steps to remove the substantial and efficient production group that has produced whole milk–

Senator Cavanagh:

– We are trying to get the business of the Senate through. If the Government will not discipline you, you will get no help from us.

Senator ARCHER:

– I think you have left that a bit late. There is need for further Australia-wide rationalisation. When it comes to the expenditure of these funds through the dairy research program, 1 think that much of the money will need to go towards considering how we can further streamline and rationalise the business and take on the programs that are necessary for the 1 980s. A great deal of money will need to be spent on the sciences of breeding and feeding, in particular; on the handling and housing of fertilisers and their controls, and also in the fields of manufacturing and selling. There are many avenues of research open to the industry and we trust that this money will be used for that purpose. I support the Bill.

Senator MESSNER:
South AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– in reply - I thank Senator Walsh and Senator Archer for their constructive comments. I wish the Bills a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

In Committee

The Bills.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I have a few quick remarks to make on this Bill arising out of a part answer that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Chaney) gave a while ago when dealing wilh the question I asked on the Australian Dairy Corporation. Unfortunately 1 was not present in the chamber when he made the statement in the debate on the first reading of the Customs Amendment Bill.

In answering the question I asked earlier today, Senator Chaney said that he was concerned that he may have done an injustice to Mr Webster, who at one time was the Chairman of the Australian Dairy Corporation. The question [ asked related in the main to Mr Pyle, the Acting Chairman of the Australian Dairy Corporation. 1 hope that Senator Chaney will be able to provide me with an answer to that part of my question concerning Mr Pyle at a very early date. I raised this matter also during the first reading of a Bill.

Mr Pyle is now the Acting Chairman of the Australian Dairy Corporation. If we look at this Bill.we see that Mr Pyle is an employee of the Australian Dairy Corporation and that his remuneration is derived from a levy on dairy farmers. That is set out in the Bill. Under the Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Act 1958 the Australian Dairy Corporation has been given the charter of promoting the sale of all dairy products, including market milk, cream and fresh milk products in Australia. Funds for this purpose are derived from a levy. The collection of the levy is the subject of one of the Bills now before us. Senator Walsh and I pursued this matter at some length during the Budget Session. As I say, I hope Senator Chaney will be able to expedite an answer to that part of my question about whether an amount of $1,690, which was referred to by a Minister other than Senator Chaney in a previous answer, has yet been repaid to the Australian Dairy Corporation.

Senator MESSNER:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · South Australia · LP

– 1 am informed that there was an error in Senator Chaney’s remarks in that he referred to Mr Webster but he meant to refer to Mr Pyle. Apparently no investigation by the police is being undertaken in respect of Mr Pyle.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I thank the Minister for that reply because that is what I was concerned about. As I said, it was Mr Pyle at whom questions over a long period have been directed.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 480

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1980

Second Readings

Debate resumed.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– The Opposition does not oppose these Bills and indeed welcomes their introduction. Their purpose is to amend the principal Acts in order to put into effect the provisions of the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement which was signed at the eleventh meeting of the South Pacific Forum in July. The aims of this agreement are to give greater access to the Australian and New Zealand markets for the products of the newly emerging South Pacific nations which are our neighbours. The nations in particular which are encompassed by the agreement are the island members of the South Pacific Forum.

As to the two Bills which are before us, the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 4) specifies the goods to be included and provides a definition of the origin requirements to protect the agreement from abuse. It is similar to those already applying to other trade concession agreements such as the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The other Bill - the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) - deals with the declaration of countries as ‘Forum island countries’ for the purposes of the Agreement. The Australian Labor Party welcomes this initiative to have closer trading relationships as between Australia and the Pacific nations and in particular the opportunity created by these Bills to assist in the economic development of those island nations. We wish the Bills a speedy passage.

Senator MESSNER:
South AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– in reply - Mr President, so do I.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 481

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS (GRANTS) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill is the latest instalment in the saga of government inconsistency and incompetence over the pricing of energy. It is a byproduct of the Government’s ill-considered although financially expedient - expedient in terms of government revenue - oil parity pricing policy and electoral expediency. The commitment to introduce this subsidy was one of the 58 additional commitments either to increase government spending or to reduce government revenue which were made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) six weeks after the Treasurer (Mr Howard) delivered what the Government claimed to be the most responsible and best considered Budget in history. On 1 9 August, according to the Government, it just was not responsible to increase government expenditure in any area or, indeed, adopt any measures which would increase the deficit. Six weeks later, the Government could find no fewer than 58 areas in which to introduce promises to increase the deficit either by increasing government expenditure or by reducing government revenue. In the course of the election campaign, as the demands of political expediency intensified, the Government promised an extra three handouts. As I have observed before, with this Government fiscal responsibility disappears over one horizon when an election looms up on the other.

Of the 58 promises contained in the Prime Minister’s policy speech, all were either uncosted or dishonestly costed. 1 do not leave the charge of dishonest costing hanging in the air. Specifically, this measure, according to the Prime Minister’s policy speech at the end of September, would cost $8m to $10m. According to the second reading speech of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Messner) the estimated cost is now $ 1 3m. We have had almost 50 per cent inflation in the cost of this measure in the course of six weeks. Of course, the Prime Minister knew very well when he made that commitment that it could not be done for $8m to $10m. Every one of the 58 items in the string of promises which he produced in his policy speech was either uncosted or costed dishonestly, as this item has been. The Opposition suspects that in fact the estimate of $13m, now admitted to by the Government, is lower than the actual cost will be. It will not be the first time that that has happened since this Government has been in power. I cite, in particular, the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme which according to the Prime Minister in 1977 would cost $31m in a full year; by the time the estimates were drawn up in that same year it had increased to $36m. It was obvious, at least to me, that that figure was still too low. The final cost was in excess of $40m. I expect that story will be repeated in this instance.

The Bill before us is a tacit recognition of the fact that the previous policy was untenable, for purely administrative reasons. Early this year the Government announced that it would pay a subsidy of $80 a tonne for liquefied petroleum gas used for domestic purposes and institutional purposes of a domestic type, such as children’s homes. It was stated that the subsidy would be paid retrospectively to the end of January, although how it is possible to do that when the necessary complementary legislation has only just been passed in some State parliaments, and there is in existence no comprehensive record of sales made in the interim - surely a prerequisite to the reimbursement of ultimate purchasers of the product - has not been explained. The Government has never explained how it will pay the subsidy retrospectively to 28 January, but continues to assert that it will do so. I would be delighted if the Minister could shed some light on that mystery. I do not expect that he will.

Some time after this ill-considered commitment was made, the Government realised that it would present enormous difficulties, given that LPG is sold by literally tens of thousands of retailers, in restricting the subsidy to domestic consumption. The most obvious example of the problem would be that a poultry farmer may use LPG to heat both his chicken brooder and his lounge room. Both outlets may even be hooked up to the same cylinder. In such an instance it is, of course, absolutely impossible to separate the LPG used for industrial purposes from that used for domestic purposes. That fact finally penetrated the consciousness of the Government, which realised that what it had originally proposed in January, and recommitted itself to in April and July, was administratively untenable.

Thus we have before us a Bill which extends the payment of the subsidy, in geographically specified areas - an important point to which I will return - to LPG’ used for industrial purposes. In so doing, the Government has widened the existing contradictions, which are repeated in the Minister’s second reading speech, between its stated objective for the use of LPG and the actual policy that it pursues. The Government’s objective, which has been stated frequently by allegedly responsible Ministers, is that its policy will be directed towards restricting, as far as’ is possible, the consumption of LPG to those end uses in which it has a premium value. Those end uses are specified as being petrochemical feedstock and automotive fuel. The Government says: ‘We want to discourage the use of LPG in other areas so that such limited supplies as are available may be conserved for use as a petrochemical feedstock or automotive fuel. That is the stated policy. However, the petrochemical feedstock price, is the free market price, which is in the vicinity of $252 a tonne or the crudest,, most primitive, qf .all conceivable end uses, the space heating of households - as a result of both the subsidy and the pricing arrangements imposed upon the producers by the Government earlier this year - the price is $125 a tonne. In both cases the prices cited are ex-refinery.

Therefore, in the area in which the Government asserts that it intends to discourage consumption, to encourage people to move to alternative forms of energy- heating - the Government has ensured that LPG will be sold at ‘ $125 a tonne. As a petrochemical feedstock, for which the Government believes that stocks of LPG should be conserved as much as possible, $250 a tonne is charged. So in the area in which the Government wants to discourage consumption the price, by its decree and because of the subsidy, is $125. In the area in which it wants to encourage consumption, the price is $250. That, I must say, is an extraordinary pricing policy to adopt in view of the Government’s stated objectives. I again invite Senator Carrick, the Minister who used to be responsible for these matters - he is still responsible for them if he happens to be here or if he is passing through - to shed some light on the mystery. He was never able to shed light on the mystery in the past. I now invite his stand-in today to shed some light, if he can, on the mystery as to why the Government charges twice as much for LPG in the area in which it says it wants to encourage usage as it charges for it in the area in which it says it wants to discourage usage.

This Bill just widens the pre-existing contradiction in that it widens the range of specified usage for which LPG will be supplied at $125 a tonne ex-refinery. It exposes the Government’s alleged market pricing policy for energy to derision and ridicule. One does not have to delve very far into the second reading speech, which was just incorporated in Hansard by Senator Messner, to find ample scope for derision and ridicule. For example, it is said that the Government recognises:

  1. . that Australia’s increasing dependence on imported oil during the 1980s will give LPG a premium value as a fuel for automotive use and as a petrochemical feed stock.

There repeated again is the Government’s stated objective. The speech went on:

The Government is aware, however, of the disadvantage suffered by users who are dependent on LPG, relative to their counterparts in those areas where there is access to natural gas.

That is doublespeak. The Government cannot have it both ways.’If it actually wants to discourage the use of LPG in those areas where is says it wants to discourage it, .an extraordinary way to pursue that objective is .to subsidise the price to the extent that it is only half of that charged in what it claims to be the area where it wants to encourage consumption. It gets even worse. The next sentence states:

Accordingly– .

That is, in accordance with this objective of discouraging use for the most primitive of purposes, crude space heating,’ so that it will be reserved for petrochemical feed stock -

The subsidy will be extended to consumers in industry and commerce, broadly defined, to allow those consumers also’ time to adjust and, where possible, to convert to alternative fuels.

That is newspeak - not just doublespeak. If the Government were serious about discouraging use or about encouraging these people to convert to alternative fuels, it would provide some incentive for conversion. What it is providing now is a subsidy as an incentive to non-conversion. It is providing a subsidy, the indisputable effect of which will be to entrench patterns of energy usage which the Government itself asserts are untenable and indefensible. The speech goes on to state: lt is intended that in some areas, such as Newcastle and Canberra, the subsidy will operate until the advent of natural gas reticulation, at which time the subsidy in those areas will be terminated.

With respect to that, it states:

Clause S of the Bill will provide for the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to declare those areas in which natural gas is available and thus ineligible for the subsidy.

In other words, the subsidy will not be paid in areas which are to be specified at some time in the future by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I draw the Senate’s attention to two sections of the Constitution. The first is section 51 (iii). The preamble says that the Commonwealth may make payments et cetera with respect to:

Bounties on the production or export of goods, but so that such bounties shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.

That refers to bounties on the production of exports, so perhaps bounties on an input may not be covered by that section. However, section 99 of the Constitution states:

The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade–

It seems to me that ‘regulation of trade’ is the key phrase - commerce, or revenue, give preference to one State or any part thereof over another State or any part thereof.

Yet, we have before us a Bill that says that at some time, by arbitrary decree, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs will direct that this subsidy will not be paid in certain areas of Australia. In another part of the second reading speech Canberra and Newcastle are singled out as two cities where that law will be quickly applied. I understand that, as wilh most sections of this antediluvian Constitution and given the highly profitable, querulous propensity of most lawyers, there is considerable dispute in the legal profession as to just what those sections of the Constitution mean. But it is generally recognised that it is arguable whether a measure such as that which is before the Senate now is in fact constitutional. It would serve the Government right if, at some time in the future, it found itself up before the High Court facing a suit from consumers in Newcastle and Canberra from whom this subsidy had been withdrawn. Another complexity set out in the second reading speech is this:

Automotive use will remain ineligible for the subsidy except when the gas is used in the propulsion of a fork-life truck or a similar factory or warehouse vehicle.

That is another complexity written into the law which will get the Government into more trouble in attempting to administer this Bill. The Minister also said in his second reading speech:

I emphasise that the Government is determined that the extension of the subsidy should not encourage the large scale use of LPG by new users, and to this end will keep a close watch on future developments.

Flexing its muscles, the Government says: ‘We are determined not to encourage the large scale use of LPG by new users’. How does the Government go about pursuing that objective? It extends the range of end purposes for which the subsidy is payable. What an extraordinary way to discourage the use of LPG by new users - by reducing the price. What an extraordinary way of restricting the use of any commodity, to use a subsidy to reduce its price. The Government will keep a close watch on future developments. It may keep a watch on future developments; it may see glaring inconsistencies, glaring contradictions, but when the National Country Party flexes its muscles a spineless Liberal Party will cave in, as it always does, to the National Country Party’s pork barrelling demands. The second reading speech also states:

The Government is of the view that industries considering significant increases in their use of LPG for such. purposes as materials processing must make their assessment of LPG and the alternative energy sources at the full market price.

What a pious hope that is - that industries will make an assessment of the full market price when, they know that the Government has just extended the range of end uses for which the subsidy is payable. What credibility does that sort of pious exaltation have?

As I stated earlier, the real origin, I suppose, of this policy can be found in the Government’s illconceived and disastrous crude oil pricing policy which was compounded by electoral expediency and National Country Party pork barrelling. It is yet another National Country Party policy foisted on a spineless Liberal Party. The policy, firstly, contradicts the Government’s own stated energy pricing objectives and, secondly, was unenforceable in its original form, something which is now tactily recognised in this Bill. In an attempt to get around the fact that the original subsidy provision, was unenforceable, the Government is now going to extend the scope of what was originally a subsidy for domestic purposes to embrace a subsidy for industry as well. That requires complementary legislation in all the six States. We have had seven Acts of Parliament already this year. Pursuant to this subsidy, we are to have another seven either this year or next year.

In view of the time constraints facing the Senate this afternoon, 1 shall not speak any longer. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. I make the point, though, that we are firmly of the belief, as we have always been and have stated before, that this is not an appropriate policy for energy pricing. Firstly, we dispute the foundation stone on which the Government’s energy pricing policy is based, that is, world parity pricing for oil discovered in Bass Strait 10 and 15 years ago. Even if that basis existed, this is not an appropriate method for overcoming the problems of people who have been traditional users of LPG. One of the appropriate methods - the Government hints at this - is incentives or assistance, if honourable members like, to convert to other forms of energy use. If it desired the price of LPG to be reduced, that could be done by means of an export levy imposed on the main area of production, that is, the condensate from Bass Strait. There is a pre-existing Act which is quite unenforceable in its present form. This Bill, which is conceptually an amendment to that Act, will make a policy which is fundamentally inappropriate slightly more administratively tenable than it is already.

Senator MESSNER:
South AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– in reply - Senator Walsh, in his usual way of overstating things, has given us several points which need to be answered in this debate. First and foremost, he told the Senate that the subsidy as announced in the Government’s election policy speech, was, in fact, understated by the order of some 50 per cent, 1 believe he said. I understand that the election policy speech mentioned a figure of $10m. In fact, the costing as stated in the second reading speech is $13m. So, perhaps on the first count, Senator Walsh could check his arithmetic.

Senator Walsh:

– It was $8m to $ 10m.

Senator MESSNER:

– On the more important point, Senator Walsh, as 1 understand it, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his policy speech did make a commitment that traditional users in decentralised industries would be provided with this subsidy. In the event it has been difficult to define decentralised areas. So, this principle has been extended so as to cover commercial users in areas where natural gas is not available. 1 would have thought that Senator Walsh would not have objected to a further extension of this facility to people who might otherwise have been closed off from it because of some anomaly or some borderline which may have been difficult to define. I find his argument particularly odd and completely repudiate his opinion that the original costing was in any way dishonest.

In relation to the second matter which he raised concerning the incentive and whether a subsidy of this kind really acted as a kind of disincentive for people to convert to alternative forms of energy, I point out that the subsidy as set out in this Bill and in the previous legislation runs for three years only. Obviously if that subsidy were available for only that period there would be a definite period in which people would need to convert to other forms of energy. The subsidy provides a very definite incentive; 1 hope that Senator Walsh agrees.

The third point raised by Senator Walsh related to retrospective payments under the previous legislation. 1 am informed that although the policy was announced on 8 April 1980, to operate from 28 March, legislative measures were necessary before the scheme could be implemented. The then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Garland, formulated the schemes on 3 July 1980. I am further advised that the first claim for subsidy was lodged and paid within a fortnight of that date. At this stage over $7m has been paid to registered distributors for sales for eligible use. Registered distributors have, where practicable, made retrospective adjustments to 28 March either by issuing credit notes or cheques to gas users. All major distributors have made the necessary arrangements; in fact all but one distributor has taken the appropriate action to adjust accounts by either of those methods.

The last point Senator Walsh raised concerning the Constitution is shortly answered by reference to an opinion which is in the hands of the departmental advisers, lt is from the Attorney-General’s Department and to the effect that there can be no objection to the kind of subsidy which is being made available under this legislation. The relevant case is that of W. R. Moran Pty Ltd v. the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in 1940. lt is reported at page 338 of 63 Commonwealth Law Reports. Perhaps Senator Walsh may attend to that and improve his knowledge of the situation. I wish the Bill a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 485

CHRISTMAS ISLAND AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Readings

Debate resumed.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– The Senate is debating a package of three Bills. Overall, we in the Opposition do not oppose them. I am sure that in the brief time at our disposal we will make one or two wise observations and seek information additional to that contained in the second reading speeches. 1 deal firstly with the Christmas Island Amendment Bill. There is complete unanimity about the conferring of Australian citizenship on the inhabitants of Christmas Island. It is not a question to belabour very much. 1 am prompted to ask a few questions. I have here the Department of Home Affairs annual report for 1979-80 which deals with Christmas Island. The report contains a summary which refers to a number of matters, lt states: . . the emphasis should be on mainland recruitment instead of recruitment from South Bast Asia

When migrants are granted Australian citizenship, a lot of them become much more mobile and from time to time travel to the various States of Australia. I wonder what form of control there will be. Who will determine if the work force available within Australia is inadequate, what the recruitment process will be’? Will numbers be fixed? I say that for a particular reason. Many of us, on both sides of the chamber, have had dealings with the Union of Christmas Island Workers. 1 would like an undertaking from the Government that it will be given the equivalent right of consultation that the Australian Council of Trade Unions receives from time to time in relation to our immigration program. 1 will not say for one moment that a government unreservedly accepts employer or employee advice. 1 believe, in view of what is stated in the annual report about Christmas Island, that this is a matter for the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee), through his advisers. He should be able to give some information. 1 presume that the major employer on Christmas Island will have some axe to grind - it has in the past - but 1 believe that we should keep a close watch on this matter. Whilst nobody accepts the idea of migrants being virtually industrial cannon fodder, we realise that job security is one of the main components of a successful immigration program. The Minister should be more specific as to the future of Christmas Island and the maintenance of what is deemed to be an adequate work force.

The Immigration (Unauthorized Arrivals) Amendment Bill really is a corollary to the first Bill and refers only to what could happen if boat people appear in the vicinity of Christmas Island. As has been said by most speakers in the debate, nobody wants to ignore Australia’s refugee obligations, but there has to be some order. All sorts of peculiar things can happen. If there were an unfettered intake of refugees, Australia would inherit the problem which the United States had in Florida. There was an uncontrolled influx of Cubans. That is a situation in which there could be the worst of the two worlds.

The regularisation of status program is really a mini amnesty. I think all honourable senators appreciate that there is no other portfolio which deals so much with the human element as does the portfolio of immigration. Whatever differences we might have in emphasis that we place on different aspects of immigration, 1 suppose, in broad terms - the job categories, the family reunions, and the refugees - are all part of an overall intake. If there are too many fudgings, as it were, that is when difficulties start. 1 believe that on occasions people have come here genuinely on tourist visas but the situations in their countries have changed. A certain authority should rest with the Minister. I have in mind the Dawes scheme by which people have come here from Bolivia when a revolution started and trade unionists and student activists were shot down. In regard to the Bolivian situation, 1 found the Dawes committee to be reasonably effective. 1 know what has been said. If honourable senators look at Review 80, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs report, they will see that there are people who go around the traps, from member to member, and that there are some people who, to say the least, are untruthful. By and large, people are getting tourist visas. The vast majority of people come here for a wedding or for some other family reunion, and they abide by the terms of their visas. But other people take a calculated risk and hope to have the status of their visas converted to permanent status. It is something that a country cannot allow without applying effective curbs. I know that difficult situations will arise. That is part of life. But 1 believe that the Minister can reposition the signpost, as it were, so that people can change their visa status. That is reasonable enough.

It seems to me that two things are lacking which should apply. Whilst the Minister has probably reduced the area of misrepresentation, I still believe there is not enough liaison with the State authorities to weed out the corrupt travel agents and one or two members of the legal fraternity as well. I will not name the person in one case that has gone on like Gone With the Wind. For over 12 months the State Government concerned has been conducting prosecutions against this person under the legislation relating to the State Travel Agents Registration Board. 1 believe that the Federal Government, with the aid of the AttorneyGeneral’s Department, should tighten up on one or two other people who seem to be carrying on these practices.

There is one area which I would like the Minister to amplify more than was done in the House of Representatives. Together with Senator Grimes and under the chairmanship of Senator Walters on Estimates Committee C, 1 raised certain questions on the components of our migrant annual intake. Early in the proceedings of that Estimates Committee we were told that the number of people who have come here under what is known as the trans-Tasman free flow arrangement has reached 18,000. Unquestionably a lot of those people make a great contribution to Australia’s expansion, but I believe that if we have an openended commitment we might decide that for economic reasons the annual intake of migrants will be 90,000, 1 20,000 or even 1 50,000 people. If we plan with this trans-Tasman free flow arrangement this scheme is open to abuse. In theory, and partly in practice, this scheme is limited to British Commonwealth nationals, people from the Republic of Ireland and, 1 suppose, people from other areas who are coming here but these people are coming in desperation via New Zealand. Whilst I notice that the Minister disputed the number of people who have been arrested for certain criminal activities I believe there is no reason we could not have some form of identity card. I deliberately do not say that we should have extreme passport control but I believe that that is what we must have when we accept this scheme.

Whatever criticism of our immigration policy is offered from time to time we are primarily wedded to the idea that people come here as permanent residents with the expectation of reasonable employment opportunities. We have never adopted the selfish posture of the fat cat European Economic Community countries. An example is that recently France used African nationals for sewerage work and other heavy and dirty work but when things got tough it packed them all back to their country again. Frankly, the role of West Germany has not been much better in relation to the facilities provided for the education of guest workers’ children. We have avoided all that. Having done that, within the ambit of the fact that Australians and New Zealanders have inferior work opportunities in EEC countries, including Britain - and I do not say those countries have been unduly harsh, but it is always lurking in the background - we certainly have a right to exercise fairly tight control.

The other vexed question involves the unfortunate people who missed the cut-off time. Many of those people were aware when they came here that they might get several extensions of their visas but they knew that there would have to be some unusual situation for them to be able to convert to permanent residence. On the other hand, I think we all agree that if the Minister did not have certain discretion a problem may arise in that in some small country or in even a large country a coup d’etat may occur and, due to guilt by association, some people who were in Australia on tourist visas would receive a hot reception when they went back to their home country. Generally, we are delighted with the overdue conferring of Australian citizenship on Christmas Island inhabitants. The episode of the boat people has been checkmated. On the other matter, I think it will probably be easier for members to explain to people those who can win and those who cannot win. I hope the Minister has closer collaboration with the States to weed out corrupt travel agents and people of that ilk. We will watch the situation in the future very closely.

I make one other plea. Migration always seems to be an area in which there is a highly articulate multitude of ethnic groups and vital trade union considerations. Estimates Committee C has received some excellent responses to its inquiries and I would like to believe that if the Committee’s inquiries are not to be ongoing at least the Senate will give favourable consideration to Notice of Motion No. 7 standing in my name and relating to the appointment of a select committee to inquire into and report on Australia’s immigration program. 1 do not think that the Government has anything to fear from such a move. On the contrary, when we see in cold print the testimony from right across the board - from employers, trade unions, and the various ethnic groups, all of whom have been subject to interrogation - I think that a government, whichever party it may be, can see the complexities of the matter. It could then say to a particular group: ‘Your demands are excessive because you have to accommodate others’.

I still believe that there has been a crying need for this form of public testimony since we first applied the cut-off system. We will never convince people in some countries that have oppressive right wing governments. Senator Primmer has spoken on a number of occasions about people in Uruguay. Until our refugee component is a percentage of the intake and has more relativity with other groups, we will get a lot of discontent. That is something that I hope a future committee would consider. In the meantime, I say in conjunction with my colleague Senator Grimes that the Opposition accepts the legislation in principle.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I wish to make a couple of remarks about that part of the Migration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980 which tightens up the number of people who have arrived in this country on temporary visas and other visitor’s permits and who will be able to get permanent residence in Australia, after the present amnesty ceases. It seems to me and to the Opposition, although we do not oppose this legislation, that no real effort has been made to determine the reason for the high number of illegal immigrants coming to this country, particularly in recent years. Most of them are here with relatives. There is a suggestion that one of the problems is the great difficulty, about which every member of Parliament knows, in getting permission for family reunion, despite the Government’s stated policy that family reunion is an important part of its immigration policy.

The second matter I bring up and on which I seek some comment from the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) relates to the Regularisation of Status Program. During the present amnesty, despite considerable publicity in both the English language Press and the ethnic Press, and despite continued assurances by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee) and other members of the Government of an estimated 70,000 to 80,000 illegal immigrants being in this country, applications for regularisation of status have been received from only some 12,500. One wonders why at such a time, when such assurances are given by the Minister, the vast majority of illegal immigrants in this country still do not come forward to seek regularisation of their status. If this situation continues until 1 January, which is the last day on which they will have an opportunity to make application, it will not matter whether we change the legislation in the manner that is proposed. I suggest that unless we look hard at the reasons why illegal immigrants come here and at the reasons why illegal immigrants who are here now and .have the opportunity to obtain normal status do not do so, neither this or any other legislation will make much difference to the number of illegal immigrants who enter Australia using the measures that have been used in recent years. Having said that, the Opposition does not oppose the legislation. We realise the reasons for its introduction and the difficulties that have been created in the past under the present setup.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I thank the Senate for its support of this measure. Senator Mulvihill in the course of his remarks asked several questions, a number of which I cannot answer. I will refer the policy matter in relation to Christmas Island to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Ellicott). Senator Mulvhill also referred to the problem of the 18,000 immigrants who arrive in Australia from New Zealand in a period of 12 months and asked about the wisdom of the arrangement in its present form. The Government has formed the view that the benefits obtained from this outweigh some of the very obvious disadvantages that the scheme may have and therefore has concluded that it should continue.

Regarding the question raised by Senator Grimes about what appears to be a relatively small percentage of the illegal migrants who have come forward under the program, I am advised that in fact the 12,500 applications may cover a wider number of people than the actual number of applications themselves, so that it may not be quite as low a proportion as the figures suggest. I think it is very likely that as the deadline comes nearer, there will probably be quite a rush of applications. I am afraid that I cannot assist any further with that query from Senator Grimes. I thank the Senate for supporting these measures and I hope that the Bills have a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 487

QUESTION

DOCUMENTS ON AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE AND FOREIGN POLICY 1968-1975

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– by leave - This morning in a question to me Senator Evans referred to a letter sent to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Street) by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) concerning a report that the Department of Foreign Affairs had made photocopies of the book Documents on Australian

Defence and Foreign Policy 1968-1975 for circulation to relevant officers and embassies. 1 have now been informed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the facts of this matter are as follows: A very limited number of photocopies of excerpts from the book were sent by the Department of Foreign Affairs to a number of Australian ambassadors and high commissioners in countries which were the subject of specific reference in the book. The copies were carefully made so as to be copies only of documents reproduced in the book. The copies did not include any material, introduction or linking comment, in which Messrs Munster and Walsh might have copyright. I should add that, moreover, those copies of documents were then handled in the manner prescribed for documents bearing that classification. Copies were sent only to those ambassadors or high commissioners who needed to be informed of the documents reproduced in the book and the copies sent were restricted to those documents strictly relevant to them.

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

– by leave - Senator Georges asked me this morning, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, whether any pressure was brought to bear by the Indonesian Government or authorities to prevent publication of the book Documents on Australian Defence and Foreign Policy 1968-1975. 1 am informed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Street) that the answer to the honourable senator’s question is no. The considerations underlying the Government’s action in relation to this book were fully covered in a reply by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in the Parliament on 2 December to a question on that subject.

page 488

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator MESSNER:
South AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– During the debate on the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill 1980, I referred to the point made by Senator Walsh that the cost of the electoral promise in respect of that grant is $8m. I understood that figure to be $10m. I have since checked and found that Senator Walsh was correct.

page 488

NATIONAL COUNTRY PARTY ELECTION ADVERTISEMENT

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the legal opinion of the Attorney-General’s Department in relation to a complaint from Senator

Chipp regarding a National Country Party advertisement in the Northern Daily Leader of 1 1 October 1980. I also present the two earlier opinions to which it refers. 1 seek leave to have the opinions incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The opinions read as follows -

ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600 Tel: 6! 9111 PLEASE QUOTE YOUR REF: 1 5 October 1980

Chief Australian Electoral Officer,

P.O. Box 29 1 .

Civic Square, ACT 2608

Attention: Mr A. Cirulis

Commonwealth Electoral Act, s. 161 (e): Complaint by Senator D. L. Chipp

I refer to the telegram from Senator D. L. Chipp, the Leader of the Australian Democrats, addressed to the Attorney-General and received by the Attorney-General’s Office, Parliament House on 14 October 1980. A copy of the telegram was forwarded to your office the same day.

The telegram refers to advertisements such as were published in the “Tamworth Northern Daily Leader” on 1 1 October 1 980 stating inter alia:

A vote for the Democrats is as good as a vote for Labor. Chipp has made it abundantly clear that he would prefer Labor to win the election. He also said that Labor’s resource tax policy would be acceptable to him. A vote for the Democrats is a vote against the National Country Party. If you are not for us, you are against us.

The telegram goes on to state that Senator Chipp has been advised that the advertisement is in breach of section 161 (e) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Act).

In this connexion, 1 point out that, in an opinion dated 2 December 1919, the then Solicitor-General (Sir Robert Garran) advised that statements, in order to come within section 161 (e), must be “statements having some relation to the actual operation of marking the ballot paper as distinct from statements that may affect the judgment of the elector in deciding for whom he will vote”. In a subsequent opinion dated 5 October 1934 Sir Robert Garran’s successor as Solicitor-General (Sir George Knowles) advised to similar effect. He said:

In order that a prosecution under section 161 (e) should be successful, it would be necessary to establish that the statements complained of were untrue or incorrect, and that they were intended or likely to mislead or improperly interfere wilh an elector in or in relation to the casting of his vote, i.e. the actual operation of marking his ballot paper.

In my opinion, the statements were intended to influence electors in deciding for whom they would vote, but such influence, whether by incorrect statements or otherwise, is not within the scope of the paragraph.

In the light of these views, with which I agree, it seems to be clear that the advertisement in question would not constitute a breach of section 161 (e).

BRAZIL Deputy Secretary

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918-1919 SS. 161 (a)(e), 181 CRIMES ACT 1914, S. 13 HANDBOOK ISSUED BY NATIONAL CAMPAIGN COUNCIL ALLEGED TO CONTAIN DEFAMATORY STATEMENT REGARDING MR T.J. RYAN- OBLIGATION TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS

Opinion

The Chief Electoral Officer has forwarded for consideration a copy of a letter from Mr T. J. Ryan, to Mr R. Ainge-Johnson, Compiler and Publisher on behalf of the National Campaign Council, respecting a publication entitled Nationalist Speaker’s Handbook No. 2. purporting to deal with “The Facts v. Mr Ryan Claims’.

Mr Ryan’s letter is as follows:

A publication entitled “Nationalist Speaker’s Handbook, No. 2”, purporting to deal with “The Facts v. Mr Ryan’s Claims” has been brought under my notice.

I have carefully read this booklet and I find that it consists mainly of a tissue of falsehoods concerning myself and the doings of the Queensland Labor Government. On the first page of what is put forward as facts, I find ten falsehoods, while on the next there are fifteen. These pages may be taken as typical of the whole production.

I have never read a document which contains more falsehoods in such a short space. These false statements are both libellous and contrary to the provisions of the Commonwealth law dealing with elections, and I wish to notify you that I shall hold you and the members of the National Campaign Council liable in respect thereto.

Moreover,I require you to withdraw the publication from circulation and to advise all speakers on behalf of the Nationalist Party to refrain from any repetition of such gross falsehoods.

A typical illustration of the lying character of this production is to be found on page 9, where reference is made to the Ryan Thousand. After referring to a certain resolution, you go on to say:

After it was passed, he (meaning myself) never had time to appear on a recruiting platform.’

This is untrue, as a reference to the records will show.

You then proceed to say:

The Ryan Thousand scheme fizzled out after (it is said) a strength of 78 had been reached.’

The records in the possession of the officials of the Nationalist Government will show that enlistments in what was known as the Ryan Thousand went on continuously right up to the signing of the Armistice and at that date well over 400 men had enlisted. I hold written communications to that effect from the Commonwealth authorities. These men enlisted in the Ryan Thousand notwithstanding the efforts which were made by the anti-Labor advocates and their Press to make it a failure.

I notice from the Press that the Prime Minister is repeating these and many other falsehoods contained in this pamphlet, but the fact that he is doing so is no protection either to you or to the members of the National Campaign Council, who must shoulder their own responsibility in connection with it.

I am forwarding a copy of this letter to Mr P. M. Glynn, the responsible Minister in charge of the conduct of the elections.

In a covering letter to the Minister for Home and Territories Mr Ryan requests that the Minister will be good enough to take steps to enforce the law and to prevent any further breach of the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral law, such as is disclosed in the “Handbook” referred to.’

The minute of the Chief Electoral Officer relating to the matter is as follows:

Referred for consideration.

I understand that the point raised by Mr Ryan is that certain statements contained in the accompanying Handbook - two of which are quoted in his letter dated the 16th November - constitute an infringement of the Electoral Act.

Mr Ryan requests the Minister ;

to take steps to enforce the law; and

to prevent further breach of the provisions of the law as disclosed in the pamphlet.

The sections which might possibly bear upon Mr Ryan’s complaint appear to be Sections 161 (e) and 181.

The Electoral administration has not hitherto taken action under Section 181, inasmuch as the aggrieved candidate, being in possession of all the facts, can himself initiate proceedings if he considers that the published statement in question comes within the scope of the section, and can, if he establishes a case, obtain an injunction.

Section 161 (c) deals with the publication of an untrue or incorrect statement intended or likely to mislead or improperly interfere with any elector in or in relation to the casting of his vote.

A question arises as to whether statements in the nature of those complained of by Mr Ryan, come within the scope of this section.

It will be noted that the name and address of the author is on the first page instead of at the foot of the pamphlet as required by Section 161. This is a technical breach of the law but of a minor character”.

The sections of the Electoral Act which the Chief Electoral Officer suggests may possibly have been contravened by the publication ofthe pamphlet are Sections 161 (a), 161 (e),and 181.

By s. 161 (a) it is an illegal practice to publish “Any publication of any electoral advertisement handbill or pamphlet or any issue of any electoral notice (other than the announcement by advertisement in a newspaper of the holding of a meeting) without at the end thereof the name and address of the person authorising the same”.

The publication under consideration has not at the end thereof the name and address of the person authorising it, but on the front cover are the words “Compiled and authorised for and on behalf of the National Campaign Council by R. Ainge-Johnson, 395 Collins Street, Melbourne”. In my opinion, while a technical contravention of the Section has been committed, the object of the Section has been fully complied with.

Section 161 (e) makes it an offence to print, publish or distribute “any electoral advertisement, notice, handbill, pamphlet, or card containing any untrue or incorrect statement intended or likely to mislead or improperly interfere with any elector in or in relation to the casting of his vote”.

The untrue or incorrect statements to which paragraph (e) relates are statements intended or likely to mislead or improperly interfere with an elector in or in relation to the casting of his vote. They must, in my opinion, be statements having some relation to the actual operation of marking the ballot paper, as distinct from statements which may affect the judgment of the elector in deciding for whom he will vote.

I have glanced through the pamphlet but have not discovered any statements intended or likely to mislead an elector in or in relation to the casting of his vote.

Section 1 8 1 of the Act is as follows: “181. (1.) A person shall not make or publish any false and defamatory statement in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate.

Penalty: One hundred pounds, or imprisonment for six months.

Provided always that it shall be a defence to a prosecution for an offence against this sub-section if the defendant proves that he had reasonable ground for believing and did in fact believe the statement made or published by him to be true.

Any person who makes a false and defamatory statement in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate in contravention of this section may be restrained by injunction at the suit of the candidate aggrieved, from repeating the statement or any similar false and defamatory statement”.

I have not before me any evidence as to whether any statements contained in the pamphlet are false and defamatory in relation to the personal character or conduct of Mr Ryan.

It is impossible for me to advise, in the absence of evidence, whether any contravention of section 181 has taken place.

In any case, there is, no legal obstacle to the institution of proceedings by Mr Ryan, if he so desires (See section 1 3 (b) of the Crimes Act 1914).

Having regard to the nature of the offence created by section 181, it would, in my opinion, be preferable that as a general rule proceedings should be instituted by an aggrieved candidate rather than by theDepartment. And this is borne out by sub-section (2) of the section which empowers a court to grant an injunction at the suit of the candidate aggrieved, restraining the defendant from repeating a false and defamatory statement.

For these reasons I see no ground for the institution of proceedings by the Department in this case. (Signed) R. R. GARRAN Solicitor-General 2.12.1919.

The Chief Electoral Officer.

No. of 1934.

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918-1929 ss. 161 (d), 181- ELECTORAL ADVERTISEMENT IN BRISBANE TELEGRAPH- MISLEADING ELECTORS

Opinion

The Secretary, Department of the Interior, has forwarded a page from the Telegraph newspaper, Brisbane, dated 14 September, containing electoral advertisements issued by the Queensland Labour Organization, and has asked for advice as to whether or not there is a case for prosecution.

The advertisements referred to are presumably those authorized by C. G. Fallon, and read as follows: -

–

WARNING!

ALL WAGES AFFECTED!!

FEDERAL BASIC WAGE

Under Anti-Labour (Profiteering Banks Party) £3/2/0 per week

QUEENSLAND BASIC WAGE

Under Labour (People’s Party)

£3/14/0

Fight Against Your Wages Being

Reduced 12/- Per Week

VOTE LABOR

Business Men Beware

This Means £6,000,000 per Year

More in Circulation!!

YOU Know What This Means to Your Business Turnover-

DON’T RISK LOSING IT!!

VOTE LABOR

–

“BEWARE!

The

LYONS NATIONALIST

GOVERNMENT

Threatens to take your Savings from the Commonwealth Savings Bank (Australia’s Own and Strongest Financial Institution) to hand them over to their wealthy friends (The Privately Owned Banks)

Don’t let them get away with this:

YOUR SAVINGS (if you have any)

ARE SAFE WHERE THEY ARE!

VOTE LABOR

and Keep Them Safe!!”

Section 161 (e) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1 9 1 8- 1 929 provides as fol lows: “161. In addition to bribery and undue influence, the following shall be illegal practices:

Printing, publishing or distributing any electoral advertisement . . . containing any untrue or incorrect statement intended or likely to mislead or improperly interfere with any elector in or in relation to the casting of his vote;” -It is presumed that the words objected to in advertisement (a) are “Anti-Labor (Profiteering Banks Party)”, and in advertisement (b) “The Lyons Nationalist Government threatens to take your savings from the Commonwealth Savings Bank … to hand them over to their wealthy friends (The Privately Owned Banks)”.

In order that a prosecution under section 161 (e) should be successful, it would be necessary to establish that the statements complained of were untrue or incorrect, and that they were intended or likely to mislead or improperly interfere with an elector in or in relation to the casting of his vote, i.e. the actual operation of marking his ballot paper.

In my opinion, the statements were intended to influence electors in deciding for whom they would vote, but such influence, whether by incorrect statements or otherwise is not within the scope of the paragraph.

I am of the opinion that a prosecution in respect of the statement referred to would not be successful. 11 is pointed out, however, that the institution of proceedings in respect of alleged offences against the Electoral Act docs not rest solely wilh the Commonwealth. Such proceedings may bc instituted by any person. (Crimes Act 1914-1932, section 13.) (sd) GEO S. KNOWLES Solicitor-General 4/10/1934

The Secretary, Department of the Interior, canberra.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– 1 also seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– On 3 December, Senator Chipp asked the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) at Question Time whether he would present to the Senate the legal opinion sought by the Australian Electoral Office upon which it based its conclusion that the National Country Party advertisement in the Northern Daily Leader of 1 1 October 1980 did not infringe section 161 (e) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Attorney-General said that he would refer the matter to the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr Newman) for his attention. After discussion, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Administrative Services have agreed so to do. I might add that I received the statement and the opinions only in the last few minutes. I have attempted to have them circulated in the chamber. I am sorry about their late arrival. An attempt was made to advise Senator Chipp of the action being taken. He is not in Parliament House at the moment. We will undertake to let him know.

Senator BUTTON:
Leader of the Opposition · Victoria

– by leave - I do not wish to introduce any unpleasant note into the Senate at 20 minutes past four this afternoon and I certainly do not want to enter into a legal argument about proceedings which I understand have been taken in the High Court of Australia by the AustralianDemocrats, ft is sufficient for me to say that’ I think it is in rather bad taste to table that opinion On the last day of sitting when court proceedings have been initiated by the Australian Democrats, even though Senator Chipp invited that course. I would suggest that it was not done with the greatest degree of tact.

page 491

AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– by leave - I have before me a statement from the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations relating to the presentation, belatedly, of the 1978 Australian Wheat Board accounts. The Statement has been approved by the members of the Committee and has been made available to the Opposition. I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows -

Mr President, yesterday the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry tabled in the Senate the Australian Wheat Board’s annual report and financial statements for the year ended 30 November 1 978 - two years after the closure of the accounts.

As with the annual report and the financial statements Ibr the year ended 30 November 1977 the Auditor-General has heavily qualified the accounts. He said:

As required by section 45 (2) of the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1974, I report that the financial statements for the year ended 30 November 1 978 are in agreement with the accounts and records of the Board as supplemented by the reconstructed accounting records and suporting working papers.

With the exception of the Ceres House. Replacement and Development Reserve mentioned earlier in this report, no breaches of the Act have been found. However, the state of the Board’s accounting records and internal control systems do not allow me to reach an opinion on whether the receipt, expenditure and investment of moneys, and the acquisition and disposal of assets by the Board during the year have been in accordance with the Act.

Because of the material deficiencies referred to in this report, I am of the opinion that the statements are nol based on proper accounts and records and do not show fairly the financial transactions for the year ended 30 November 1978 and the state of affairs of the Australian Wheal Board as al that date.’

The audit conclusions indicate that the statements arc not based on proper accounts and records and do not show fairly the financial transactions for the year ended 30 November 1978.

Because of the serious difficulties the Board has experienced in implementing an accounting system so that the annual report and financial statements fulfil the statutory requirements the Senate Standing Committee expected the AuditorGeneral’s heavy qualifications.

Like the Auditor-General the Committee believes it would not be a useful exercise lo attempt further improvement to the 1978 accounts.

However, the Committee along with the Auditor-General is concerned to establish, not only to the Parliament’s satisfaction but to the satisfaction of wheatgrowers and the Board’s customers, that the Board is implementing and maintaining an effective accounting and reporting system which will preclude the sort of problems encountered over these two years. Not only are we concerned with the past problems of the Board but also with improving the Board’s current and future performance.

The Board has indicated that management and accounting systems changes have been and are continuing lo be made. Outside consultants have been employed and it is the Committee’s understanding that the Public Service Board has made recommendations about the management structure of the Board.

In ari attempt- to obviate prolonged examinations by the Committee of the Board’s accounting and reporting performance in the future the Committee proposes to meet again wilh representatives of the Australian Wheat Board to obtain information about the changes which have been made and are proposed. If there are areas where it believes the accountability to this Parliament and wheatgrowers can be improved it will make the appropriate suggestions.

The Committee sees it as essential that the Australian Wheat Board along with other Commonwealth statutory authorities should have the highest accounting and reporting standards.

The Committee will report further to the Senate following its meetings with the Board.

page 492

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory - Interest Rates

Senator DURACK (Western Australia-

Attorney-General) (4.23) -I move:

When the Senate rises on this occasion it will be doing sofor the last time this year. The Parliament will not be sitting again until after Christmas. I would like to express my thanks to you, Mr President, and to many other people who have been associated with us in our work in this place during the year. Christmas is a season of goodwill and an opportunity for us to pause and think about deeper things than perhaps we would discuss in this august chamber. Senator Walters sought to introduce a spirit of goodwill at an earlier stage of today’s sitting.I think that there has been a great measure of co-operation and goodwill in the Senate, not only today but also in recent days. I hope that we will be able to go about our work in the next year and in the years to come in a continuing spirit of goodwill. It is important for our democratic system that this chamber and the other place be able to work in a co-operative manner within the parliamentary machinery. This depends upon a great number of people. It is to those people thatI address my few remarks this afternoon.

Mr President, to you we express our particular thanks. Your abiding fundamental sense of fairness in the chair is vital to the operation of this chamber. I also thank the Chairman of Committees and the temporary chairmen who assist him for exercising the same responsibilities, with the same tact, at all times. I thank the clerks at the table, the people who back them up and the attendants who help us with unfailing courtesy in the chamber and outside. I notice that at this time last year Senator Carrick mentioned the pleasure that we had in welcoming the then new Clerk, Mr Bullock. It is a matter of regret that he was not with us longer. A few days ago we welcomed a new Clerk. We hope that he will be with uslonger and will enjoy better health than his predecessor. We already know him well and we look forward to working with him, the Deputy Clerk, the assistant clerks and their staffs.

It is also my pleasure this afternoon to mention the members of the Hansard staff who sit at the table so attentively, vigorously recording everything that is said. I often wonder whether on occasions, they consider that their task is worth while. For some reason we all have a major interest infinding out not only what we said but also what the other fellow said. Therefore, the contribution made by the Hansard staff is very important. Associated with themI mention the Government Printer. Although we do not see him, he and his staff work through the night in order to have that precious document Hansard available to us before Question Time so that honourable senators can make the most of it if possible.I also thank those in the Joint House Department who attend to our creature comforts.I thank the staff of the Australian Broadcasting Commission who make sure that our words on Wednesdays and on Fridays when we sit on Fridays are broadcast.

I express my thanks -I express them particularly on behalf of our Leader, Senator Carrick, who unfortunately cannot be here - to my ministerial colleagues and their staff, to the Whips and to all honourable senators on this side of the chamber who, in the main, support us so well and effectively.I also express my best wishes and thanks to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Button).I take the opportunity again of congratulating him on his recent election to that position. I look forward to very vigorous jousting with him, in particular, in the year ahead. Finally, I thank all honourable senators on the other side of the chamber. Although, as I said, we fight vigorously in the chamber, we are all capable of enjoying each other’s company when we leave it, and so it must always be. Mr President, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the chamber,I wish you and all our colleagues that I have mentioned a very happy Christmas and New Year.

Senator BUTTON:
Leader of the Opposition · Victoria

– On behalf of the Opposition we would like to be associated with the generality of the remarks made by our colleague, Senator Durack.I cannot remember all the particulars soI refer only to the generality of the goodwill which he has just expressed. We on this side share in that expression of goodwill and thanks to all the people whom he has mentioned at the end of another calendar year, as it were, of the Senate’s deliberations.

On behalf of the Opposition,I wish all honourable senators a safe and happy break from this place. We also look forward very much to returning next year to a Senate where we hope we will have the opportunity of taking part in much more constructive and thoughtful debates than perhaps we enjoyed during 1980. We on this side would certainly welcome that and we hope, from that point of view, that it will be a successful year.

Senator SCOTT:
Leader of the National Country Party · New South Walesa

– I should like to join, both personally and on behalf of the members of the National Country Party of Australia, in extending to you, Mr President, the best wishes for Christmas and the New Year and also to honourable senators on both sides of this chamber. You, sir, have exhibited, I believe, a great measure of tolerance in a chamber which, from time to time, appears to have a significant amount of intolerance. I just hope that as we proceed into the next parliamentary year we will find ourselves with perhaps a measure of moderation, a determination to be constructive and to develop in this great country its real potential for all Australians across the board and for its capacity to be of value to our friends near and far.

Mr President, I also extend best wishes for Christmas and the New Year to all those people who make this chamber work as well as it does- to the officers of the Senate, to the members of Hansard, to the attendants and to all those other people who contribute to the workings of this chamber and of this Parliament. To all of them I extend the best for Christmas and 1 98 1 .

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I wish to speak very briefly. This week the Government introduced very significant changes to its interest rates policy. The grounds for those changes were that if the overdraft rate continued to be administered at around 2i per cent below the market rate for Government paper, then very limited funds would be available for lending in the overdraft area. That situation always has applied. It did not just crop up last week. It has applied for several months. Why did the Government not recognise the reality and change the policy earlier? There is some credibility to be attached to the view that the Government’s election on 18 October was a significant factor and for electoral reasons it would be unlikely to increase interest rates prior to that. That view has some credibility, lt is less credible that it would be so considerate to the Queensland Government as to delay the increase in the interest rates until after the State election.

I think it ought to be noted that the most passionate opponent of high interest rates among the members of the Cabinet is the Minister for Communications (Mr Sinclair), lt is a matter of public record that he was to repay $100,000, which had previously been available to him at a fixed rate of interest of 1 0 per cent, during the last month and presumably that money must be borrowed elsewhere. In other words, a loan must be renegotiated at the current rate of interest to repay money which had previously been available at a fixed rate of interest. Whether any other borrowings were required during that month is not known. It would be interesting to know, and I think perhaps it ought to be known.

The PRESIDENT:

– Honourable senators, on behalf of all the staffs of the Department of the Senate, the Joint House Department, the Parliamentary Library, Hansard, the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms, those who tend the gardens, the maintenance folk and the ladies and gentlemen of the Australian Broadcasting Commission who broadcast the proceedings, may I express thanks and appreciation for the tributes which have been paid to them. It is deeply appreciated to hear - as expressed today - that there is acceptance of the dedicated services which these people render in this place. For myself I thank everyone most kindly for the splendid spirit of goodwill and co-operation shown throughout the year. I wish each of you and your families and all members of staff a very happy Christmas and a very prosperous and happy New Year.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.36 p.m. until Tuesday, 24

February 1981, at 3 p.m., or such other day and/ or hour as may be fixed by the President, or in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Chairman of Committees in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day.

page 494

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Immigration: Investigation of Applicants (Question No. 5)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

Has the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs ever undertaken similar culling action to that taken in the current United States Supreme Court court case in which the United States Government is prosecuting Mr Feodor Fedorenko for concealing his World War II concentration camp atrocities; if so, (a) how many such deceptions have been detected: and (b) what action followed.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The United States Supreme Court is currently considering the ‘Federenko case’. I am informed that the question to be resolved is a technical one relating to the interpretation and definition of ‘material’ misrepresentation as provided under section 3.40 (A) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act dealing with denaturalisation.

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on a case currently before the United States Supreme Court.

United States National Judy Chavez: Visa (Question No. 6)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. For what period was a visa issued to United States national Judy Chavez, a self-confessed Central Intelligence Agency sex decoy.
  2. Has she returned to the United States or has she been granted an extension of her visa.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Ms ChavezTaylor was admitted to Australia as a temporary resident following sponsorship in Melbourne, in November 1979, by a reputable publishing firm. She was assessed as being a bona fide applicant who was coming to Australia for a short period to publicise a book she had written and who would leave within the period of her authorised stay of one month.

1 ) Period of visa issued - 1 month. Ms Taylor arrived in Melbourne on 22 February 1980.

Ms Taylor departed from Sydney on 1 March 1980 after a stay of nine days. It is not known if she returned to the United States; on departure she gave an interim destination.

Education: Overseas Students (Question No. 14)

Senator Rocher:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

How many overseas students were enrolled at Australian universities and institutes of advanced education for the academic year 1 980.

Senator Carrick:
Minister for National Development and Energy · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following table in answer to the honourable member’s question:

Aviation: Commerical Pilot’s Licence (Question No. 22)

Senator Rocher:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

Are there any authorised training academies in Australia which set and mark their own examinations for their pupils in order to qualify for a Commercial, Pilot’s Licence; if so: (a) are examination results accepted without further examination by the Department of Transport; (b) which training academies are entitled to adopt such a.procedure; and (c) how many individuals have qualified for .Commercial Pilot’s Licences by this method over the past ten years.

Senator Messner:
LP

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

The answer to the first part of this question is Yes.

Yes, although random checks are made on the accuracy of marking.

Nationwide Aviation Space Academy Pty Ltd., Cessnock, New South Wales. Australian Flying Training School, Bankstown, New South Wales.

Aviation: Overseas Qualifications for Pilot Licences (Question No. 23)

Senator Rocher:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. Were qualifications earned by examination in the United States or the United Kingdom accepted at any time over the last ten years treated as qualifications for Senior Commercial and Air Transport Pilot Licences issued in Australia; if so, on how many separate occasions in each year.
  2. Are such qualifications still accepted; if not, when and why, and by what method, was the procedure changed.
Senator Messner:
LP

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

  1. Yes. A number of Senior Commercial Pilot Licences have been issued to holders of United Kingdom and United States licences. Airline Transport Pilot Licences are normally only issued to pilots employed by Australian airlines. The number of Australian licences issued on this basis is not recorded as a separate statistic.
  2. Both qualifications are still accepted, however, the United States Airline Transport Pilot Certificate is only accepted where the applicant has flown as pilot-in-command with a major United States airline. This requirement was introduced in 1975, when the aeronautical knowledge standard required for the issue of a United States Airline Transport Pilot Certificate was re-assessed and found to be significantly below our own standards. The implementation of this requirement was by an internal Flying Operations Instruction. The Australian aviation industry was advised by Aeronautical Information Circular in June 1975 that pilots planning to obtain a foreign qualification should obtain written advice from the Department of Transport on its acceptability before proceeding overseas.

Aviation: Pilot Licences (Question No. 25)

Senator Rocher:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. 1 ) What qualifications do Department of Transport examiners for Senior Commercial and Airline Transport Pilot Licences possess in (a) teaching; (b) setting examination papers; and (c) marking examination papers.
  2. Are qualifications required for examiners additional to those obtained by experience in pursuing previous vocations.
Senator Messner:
LP

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

  1. I ) (a) Either qualified as a teacher in a State education authority or as a Service Flying or Navigation Instructor.

    1. Qualifications associated with (a) plus on the job training.
    1. Yes. Possession of the minimum educational requirement for entry into the Third Division of the Australian Public Service.

Imported Canned Pigmeat (Question No. 34)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 November 1980:

What checks are made of imported canned pigmeat to ensure adequate quality and health standards.

Senator Peter Baume:
LP

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

Before permission to export canned pigmeat to Australia is given, a visit to the exporting country is made by an Australian Government veterinarian who verifies that the country’s meat inspection system, abattoirs and canning establishments conform to Australian requirements.

Each commercial shipment of canned pigmeat must be accompanied by certificates signed by a Government veterinarian of the exporting country attesting to the standard of hygiene at the cannery and to the level of heat treatment each product receives. During the heating process, the contents of each can are required to be heated to at least 100°C; this temperature is sufficient to kill all viruses capable of being transmitted in canned meat products. Can size is limited to one kilogram to ensure that the entire contents are heated to this temperature. i As a further safeguard, before commercial shipments are al lowed, canneries seeking approval are required to submit four sample cans of each product for examination at the Australian Government Analytical Laboratory so that the stated heat treatment and general standard of hygiene can be verified. In addition, random cans from commercial shipments are reqularly selected for examination to ensure that the standard is maintained.

The Laboratory is requested to carry out tests.

to confirm the absence of viable non-sporing bacteria:

to confirm that there is no evidence of gross bacterial contamination;

. to measure the internal pressure of the containers;

to measure the pH of the product;

to ensure that the odour and appearance of the product are normal.

If, at any time, the Laboratory examination proves unsatisfactory, further imports from ‘the factory in question are suspended until the problem is resolved.

Electoral Funding: Inquiry (Question No. 35)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 26 November 1 980:

  1. Is Sir Clarrie Harders to conduct an inquiry into electoral funding; if so: (a) what are the terms of the inquiry; (b) what staff will assist in the inquiry: (c) what fee will be paid to Sir Clarrie Harders for his work; and (d) to what rate of travelling allowances will he be entitled.
  2. What is the annual rate of Sir Clarrie Harder’s current Commonwealth Public Service pension.
  3. What lump sum payment did Sir Clarrie Harders receive on his retirement from the Commonwealth Public Service.
  4. ls Sir Clarrie Harders currently employed by, or as a consultant to, the Sydney law firm of Freehill, Hollingdale and Page.
  5. Are Messrs Freehill, Hollingdale and Page retained as solicitors for the New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party or Australia.
  6. Will the New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party of Australia make submissions to the inquiry into electoral funding.
  7. Has the Minister for Administrative Services received advice from Sir Clarrie Harders, prior to 1 1 September 1980, on how he intends to approach the responsibilities flowing from his dual employment, especially in relation to the recommendations of the Bowen Report on Pecuniary Interests and the Public Service Board Guidelines on Conflict of Interest.
Senator Peter Baume:
LP

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

  1. Yes; (a) see Senate Hansard for 22 May 1980, page 2657; (b) this has yet to be decided; (c) and (d) these have yet to be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.
  2. and (3) lt is not the practice to make public information on individual entitlements under the Superannuation Act 1 976 or in relation to unused recreation or long service leave on retirement.
  3. I am informed by Sir Clarrie Harders that he is a consultant to the Sydney law firm of Freehill, Hollingdale and Page, and that he is also a partner in a separate partnership in Canberra comprising partners who are also partners of the Sydney firm.
  4. I am informed by Sir Clarrie Harders that Freehill, Hollingdale and Page are not retained as solicitors for the New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party of Australia.
  5. This is not a matter falling within my responsibility as a Minister.
  6. The question assumes a conflict of interest which does not exist.

Social Welfare: Fringe Benefits (Question No. 43)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 November 1980:

  1. 1 ) Why did the Minister not answer that part of Question 3120 (see Senate Hansard p. 1420, dated 18 September 1980) which said ‘. . . is it expected that there will be administrative problems in granting such benefits as telephone rental concessions, rate concession and the issue of health benefit cards to people on a temporary social security benefit’.
  2. What are the full details in relation to extra staff employed to cope with the extra workload caused by the extension of fringe benefits to sickness beneficiaries.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. The granting of fringe benefits to short-term beneficiaries does require more administrative effort than is the case with pensioners. However, no significant administrative problems have been encountered since fringe benefits for sickness beneficiaries were introduced on 1 . 1 1 .80.
  2. The additional work is estimated to amount to the equivalent of 8 full-time positions located in some 160 different offices. Accordingly, the extra work involved was absorbed within existing resources and no additional staff were recruited specifically for this task.

Footwear: Imports (Question No. 66)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1 980:

  1. 1 ) What are the names of importers granted quotas to import footwear for the years 1 978-79 and 1 979-80.
  2. What quantity was granted to each importer.
Senator Messner:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. ) Names and addresses of recipients of licences to import footwear are listed in the following Commonwealth of Australia Gazettes:
  1. Quantity ranges of quotas issued are published in the Gazettes referred to ( 1 ) above. Details of specific quota allocations to each importer are not published to preserve commercial confidentiality.

Clothing: Imports (Question No. 67)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. 1 ) What are the names of importers granted quotas to import clothing for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80.
  2. What quantity was granted to each importer.
Senator Messner:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. 1 ) Names and addresses of recipients of quota to import clothing are listed in the following Commonwealth of Australia Gazettes:

The Gazette listing recipients of quota valid for use on and after 1 September 1 980 is in the final stages of drafting and is expected to be published by the A.G.P.S. in January 1 98 1 .

  1. Quantity ranges of quotas issued are published in the Gazettes referred to (I ) above. Details of specific quota allocations to each importer are not published to preserve commercial confidentiality.

Textiles: Imports (Question No. 68)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1 980:

  1. 1 ) What are the names of importers granted quotas to import textiles for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80.
  2. What quantity was grunted to each importer.
Senator Messner:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. Names and addresses of recipients of quota to import textiles are listed in the following Commonwealth of Australia

The Gazette listing recipients of quota valid for use on and after I September 1980 is in the final stages of drafting and is expected to be published by the A.G.P.S. in January 1981.

  1. Quantity ranges of quotas issued are published in the Gazettes referred to ( I ) above. Details of specific quota allocations to each importer are not published to preserve commercial confidentiality.

Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 85)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 November 1980:

How many special beneficiaries have been on unemployment benefit for 12 months and for whom it is considered no work ‘of a particular type is no longer available’.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The information sought is not available in the national statistics collected to date of special benefit recipients by category.

Statistics of special benefit recipients who have been on unemployment benefit for twelve months, who have limited employment prospects and for whom work of a particular type is no longer available will be separately identified when introduction of the new ADP payment system for unemployment, sickness and special benefit recipients has been completed.

Social Welfare: Appeal to Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Question No. 118)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Attorney-General the following questions, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many social security cases have gone to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
  2. On what dates were they received by the Tribunal.
  3. How many of those appeals have been resolved and on what dates.
  4. Had all those cases first gone to a Social Security Appeals Tribunal.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows:

  1. From 1 April 1980 to 26 November 1980. 44 applications for review of Social Security decisions were made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
  2. 28 April 1980, 5 May 1980, 9 May 1980. 27 June 1980, 14 June 1980, 28 June 1980, 11 July 1980, 21 July 1980, 8 August 1980, 4 September 1980, 10 September 1980, 12 September 1980, 18 September 1980, 19 September 1980. ^September 1980, 19 September 1980, 23 September 1980, 24 September 1980, I October 1980, 3 October 1980, 7 October 1980, 7 October 1980, 8 October 1980, 9 October 1980, 10 October 1980, 10 October 1980, 1 3 October 1980, 16 October 1980, 21 October 1980, 22 October 1980, 23 October 1980, 24 October 1980, 24 October 1980, 27 October 1980, 29 October 1980, 30 October 1980, 3 November 1980, 1 1 November 1980, 12 November 1980, 13 November 1980, 13 November 1980, 14 November 1980, 24 November 1980 and 24 November 1980.
  3. As at 26 November 1 980 the Tribunal has not reached a decision in any case brought before it for hearing. Two cases have been heard with the decisions reserved. One case is part heard and seven cases have been listed for either a preliminary conference or a hearing before the end of the year. Several cases have been deferred at the request of the parties while negotiations proceed. In 1 4 cases, the President has taken the view that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction, on the ground that there had been no prior consideration by a Social Security Appeals Tribunal.
  4. No. Only 20 of the 44 cases had first been considered by a Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Social Services Act) Regulations, which came into force on 1 April 1980, the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in social security cases was confined to cases that had previously been reviewed by a Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Cases that had not been to a Social Security Appeals Tribunal were therefore outside the Administrative Appeals Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Amendments to these Regulations, which came into force on 27 November 1980, now enable a case to be taken into the Administrative Appeals Tribunal without prior review by a Social Security Appeals Tribunal where al the request of a person the Director-General of Social Services certifies that an important principle of general application is involved.

These amendmends apply to a decision made by the Director-General on or after 9 September 1 980 in pursuance of section 1 4 or 1 5 of the Social Services Act 1 947.

Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme (Question No. 127)

Senator Chipp:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 November 1980:

Will the Minister consider extending eligibility for the Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme lo persons who, although resident within a metropolitan area, can demonstrate a need lo travel lo another city for essential specialist medical treatment which is not available in the city where they live.

Senator Peter Baume:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to my answer to Question No. 3009 (Hansard, 18and 19 September 1980, page 1377).

Electoral: How-to- Vote Cards (Question No. 130)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. 1 ) Could some 1 8.5 tons of paper have been used for the printing of at least 25 million how-to-vote cards for the 1980 Federal election.
  2. Could the waste of resources, pollution, effort and the annoyance caused to the public at’ large by this system be avoided simply by providing that party how-to-vote cards may be exhibited in polling booths and party names on ballot papers, as is the case in many other countries.
  3. Does the Government intend to avoid this waste and pollution throughout the nation by making the necessary simple alterations to the electoral system.
Senator Peter Baume:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the answer to Senate Question No. 3180, Senate Hansard, pages 1382-3, 18 September 1980.

Education: Per Capita Payments to Non-government Schools (Question No. 145)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. ) Does the Government intend to increase the per capita payments to non-government schools, in accordance with its election promises, from the beginning of 1981, prior to its consideration of the Schools Commission’s Triennial Report.
  2. Are Commonwealth Government funds provided to Ananda Marga and Hari Krishna schools and does the Commonwealth Government provide funds to schools which discriminate in their enrolment or employment policies on the grounds of race or religion.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Details of arrangements for the implementation of initiatives in education arising from the Government’s election policy statement will be announced as soon as possible.
  2. Under the Slates Grants (Schools Assistance) Acts, the Government is empowered to make grants to approved schools, lt is for the States to determine which institutions are to be so classified. Following State action, the Commonwealth has paid per capita and library grants to three Ananda Marga schools: Sunrise Progressive School, Belrose, Ananda Marga School, Claremont and Ananda Marga School, Hobart (since closed). No Hari Krishna School has yet applied for Commonwealth grants under the Schools Commission’s programs. If the State approves of an institution as a school it becomes subject to the provisions of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Acts.

Social Welfare: Supporting Parent’s Benefit (Question No. 147)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 November 1980:

Is the supporting parent’s benefit paid to a separated supporting parent joint-owner of, but not occupying the family home, affected by mortgage repayments; if so, what is the reason for deducting such payments from the fortnightly cheque of a supporting parent.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

As a matter of general policy half the value of mortgage repayments made by an estranged spouse in respect of jointly owned property is maintained as income for supporting parent’s benefit purposes.

In the case of a beneficiary without other income, this practice does not cause any reduction in benefit unless half the mortgage repayments exceed the amount of permissable income, i.e. $20 a week for the beneficiary plus S6 a week for each dependent child.

This policy is based on a legal opinion received some years ago that such payments fall within the definition of income in the Social Services Act. The matter is again under review and a further opinion is being sought from the Attorney-General’s Department.

Social Welfare: Guide Dogs (Question No. 154)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 November 1980:

  1. What is the maximum weekly pension which a single blind person may receive.
  2. Has the Department of Social Security assessed the costs of caring for a guide dog; if so, what is that cost per week.
  3. Do any blind persons receive any Commonwealth benefit to assist in the care of their guide dog; if so, what is that benefit; if not, will the Minister investigate whether it is possible to provide such a benefit.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. $64.10.
  2. The Department of Social Security has not undertaken any specific assessment of the costs of caring for a guide dog.
  3. Blind persons do not receive a benefit specifically for the care of a guide dog; however Invalid Pension (blind) is free of income test. This assists in offsetting the costs associated with maintaining a degree of independence, such as caring for a guide dog.

Additionally, the Department of Social Security operates the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service (CRS) through which blind people may be provided with a guide dog together with appropriate training.

Commonwealth Work Experience Program (Question No. 161)

Senator Neal:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 27 November 1980:

  1. What are the recent developments of the Commonwealth Work Experience Programme in relation to Victoria.
  2. Will Commonwealth participation in work experience schemes be fully operational early in the 1981 school year.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Implementation of the Commonwealth Work Experience Programmes in the States, including Victoria, is subject to the finalization of detailed arrangements concerned with the Commonwealth’s involvement on an Australia-wide basis.

Following my announcement in the Budget context of the Commonwealth offer of work experience in its Departments and authorities a Working Party comprised of officers of my Department, the Departments of Education and Finance and the Public Service Board was set up to consider how the scheme can be brought into operation to ensure that students receive the best possible exposure to the range of activities undertaken by the Commonwealth. The working party is due to advise me shortly on the results of its deliberations.

  1. I have asked that the necessary steps be taken to ensure that the scheme is fully operational at the beginning of the 1981 school year.

Social Welfare: Court Actions (Question No. 171)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 November 1 980:

What factors are taken into account by the Department in deciding whether to initiate court action against social security recipients suspected of providing fraudulent information to the Department.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

In deciding whether to prosecute a person for an offence against the Social Services Act the Department of Social Security has regard to all the material facts of each individual case and, on legal matters, is guided by the advice of a Deputy Crown Solicitor.

Commonwealth Rehabilitation Centre at Taringa, Queensland (Question No. 174)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 December 1980:

  1. Does the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Centre at Taringa, Queensland, act as an agent for any State Government bodies; if so, is the Workers’ Compensation Board one of these bodies.
  2. Does the rehabilitation centre accept unwilling patients ordered to attend the centre by State Government bodies.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. No. The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service accepts for assistance only those cases which are eligible under Part VIII or the Social Services Act 1947.
  2. No. For rehabilitation to be successful, participation must be on a voluntary basis with no duress.

Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: Drugs Amesec and Ephedrobarbital (Question No. 192)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 December 1980:

What are the reasons for the proposed deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme list of the drugs Amesec and Ephedrobarbital.

Senator Peter Baume:
LP

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

Following advice from the Thoracic Society of Australia and the Australian College of Paediatrics supporting the proposal that items containing various mixtures of aminophylline, theophylline and/or ephedrine with a barbiturate be deleted from the list of benefits, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) recommended the deletion of all such preparations including Amesec and Ephedrobarbital

The PBAC considers that barbiturates cause respiratory depression and may therefore endanger patients suffering from respiratory diseases such as bronchitis or asthma. This recommendation is also in line with the widely held view that where more than one potent substance is prescribed for a patient the dose of each individual drug should be able to be titrated or adjusted independently of the patient’s other medication.

Hospital Administration

Senator Peter Baume:
LP

– On 26 November 1980 (Hansard, page 33), Senator Teague asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning hospital administration.

The Minister for Health has provided the following information:

The Letters Patent establishing the Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals require the final report to be presented to the Governor-General by 31 December 1980. 1 am nol aware of any reason for this date not to be met.

The Commission will also present its report to those States whose Governments issued Letters Patent, i.e. Queensland. Tasmania and Western Australia. The Commonwealth has agreed to provide copies of the Commission’s report to the other States immediately it receives the report. The timing of public release of the report will be decided in consultation with the State Governments.

Push Button Telephones

Senator Peter Baume:
LP

– On 27 November 1 980 (Hansard, page 105), Senator Townley asked a question without notice concerning push button telephones.

The Minister for Communications has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The demand for Touchfones has exceeded Telecom’s expectations and increased orders have been placed with the manufacturer.

A new push button telephone. Touchfone 12, has recently been introduced by Telecom. The new Touchfone provides for a more rapid method of transmission but can only be connected to new generation exchanges and PABX equipment.

Telecom is currently considering the introduction of a range of telephones, including Touchfones, which would enable an engaged number to be redialled by pressing only one button.

Telecom regularly reviews tariffs in the light of costs and demand, however, there are no plans at this lime to change the tariffs for Touchfones.

Pacific Territories (Question No. 29)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Ibr Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

Which Pacific Territories:

1 ) are being considered: or

have been proposed for consideration by the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation (the Committee of 24).

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The

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

  1. The following Pacific territories are included in the Committee’s provisional list of dependent territories and. accordingly, will be considered formally by the Committee of 24 each year until the residents of these territories decide to terminate the present arrangements by an act of self determination: Tokelau. Pitcairn. American Samoa. Guam and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
  2. The Working Group of the Committee currently has before it a request, made by the Permanent Representative or Papua New Guinea, that New Caledonia be added to the Committee’s provisional list of territories, lt is expected that the Working Group will make a recommendation on this to the plenary of the Committee of 24 in due course.

I might add that any decision to add to the Committee’s provisional list of territories (or for that matter subtract from it) must be taken by the General Assembly of the United Nations, normally on the recommendation of the Committee of 24. But it is of course open to a member state to petition directly the world body on this question. To date, no such request has been put to the General Assembly, either by the Committee of 24 or by a member Stale.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 5 December 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19801205_senate_32_s87/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant