Senate
11 December 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1974

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator J. J. Webster) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3357

THE PRESIDENT

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Honourable senators will be pleased to know that this morning I was in communication with our President, Senator the Honourable Justin O ‘Byrne. He informed me from his home at Launceston that he is making very good progress. I extended to him the best wishes of all honourable senators.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

page 3357

THE SENATE

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- On 30 July of this year, the President referred to instances where honourable senators had been obstructed by journalists and cameramen in the coming to and going from Parliament House. The President referred to the Westminster sessional order dealing with the privilege of freedom from obstruction and stated:

It may be salutary if this Senate made its own Sessional Order, as at Westminster, making known honourable senators’ right to freedom from obstruction.

It has been reported to me that in recent days there have been occasions when honourable senators have been obstructed by journalists and cameramen. I propose, therefore, to confer with the President at the earliest opportunity with a view to discussing with him steps which may be taken to ensure senators’ rights to freedom from obstruction in the coming to and going from Parliament House. It may perhaps be an appropriate matter to have referred to the Privileges Committee.. In the meantime, journalists and cameramen are again reminded that facilities are provided within Parliament House where, by arrangement, they may interview senators in an orderly manner.

page 3357

PETITIONS

Baltic States

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 46 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

That whereas the Governments of the United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada and many European countries have not recognised the unlawful annexation of the Baltic States- Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia- by the Soviet Union, the Prime Minister of Australia has authorised the de jure recognition of this annexation.

According to the Charter of the United Nations, the BalticStates are entitled to independence and their people to selfdetermination.

We beg that such de jure recognition be disallowed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Trade Commissioners, South Africa

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 75 citizens of Australia:

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

That many Australians including Church, Union. Student and Community Leaders are bitterly opposed to apartheid in South Africa

That, according to the World Council of Churches, outside investment in or economic involvement in South Africa can only ever lead to minor improvements in wages and working conditions but overall reinforces the system of apartheid

That the Australian Government is seen by many Australians and Africans to be actively encouraging Australian involvement in apartheid through the presence in South Africa of two Trade Commissions and the links between Qantas and South African Airways

We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate urge the Government to

Bring back the Australian Trade Commissioners from South Africa by Christmas

To actively discourage Australian firms and traders from investing in or trading with South Africa

To withdraw the landing rights of South African Airways in favour of an arrangement with an African Airline and

To increase its aid to African countries, especially the new or emerging Governments of Mozambique, Angola and Guinea.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

Baltic States

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

That whereas the Governments of the United Kingdom. United Stales of America, Canada and many European countries have not recognised the unlawful annexation of the Baltic States- Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia- by the Soviet Union, the Prime Minister of Australia has authorised the dc jure recognition of this annexation.

According to the Charter of the United Nations, the Baltic States are entitled to independence and their people to selfdetermination.

We beg that such de jure recognition be disallowed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bessell, Senator Marriott and Senator Townley.

Petitions received.

page 3358

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3358

QUESTION

MISS JUNIE MOROSI

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Why was it necessary for Dr Cairns to take Miss Morosi with him to Sydney and then on to Melbourne last Friday? If Miss Morosi had declined a position on Dr Cairns’ staff, who authorised her travel and on whose authority did she return to Canberra?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

– I would have no knowledge of the matters that have been referred to by Senator Withers. I would not attempt to make any answer. I will refer the question to the Treasurer.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I call Senator Mulvihill.

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs -

Senator Murphy:

- Mr Deputy President -

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is there a point of order?

Senator Murphy:

– No, there is not. I wish to say that if Senator Withers wishes to direct the question to me I have some information that will assist him.

Senator Greenwood:

- Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The call was given to Senator Mulvihill and if Senator Murphy is not taking a point of order he ought not to be heard.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I call Senator Mulvihill.

page 3358

QUESTION

CZECHOSLOVAKIAN NATIONAL

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicate whether ministerial overtures can be made to the Czechoslovakian Government on behalf of New South Wales citizen Peter Gibson who seeks a clearance for his wife, a Czechoslovakian national, who is at present in Prague?

Senator WILLESEE:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I noticed in the Press this morning an article in which Mr Gibson stated that he was tremendously grateful to the Department of Foreign Affairs for the work that had already been done in this regard. I do not have personal knowledge of the details, but I will find out and let Senator Mulvihill know.

page 3358

QUESTION

HOBART TRADES HALL

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Service and Property inform me as soon as possible whether the Commonwealth Government has purchased the Hobart Trades Hall building for approximately $420,000? Was the valuation of this building prior to the Commonwealth offer to purchase it $250,000? Is it a fact that the best offer from a private enterprise buyer was $300,000, indicating a gift of some $124,000 to the Australian Labor Party? What was the Commonwealth valuation and who made the valuation? For what purpose is the building to be used?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-The answer is yes, I will find out as soon as possible and let the honourable senator know.

page 3358

QUESTION

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Senator KEEFFE:

– I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs whether he has sighted a copy of a report on racial discrimination prepared by social work students at Sydney University. Is the Minister aware that this report alleges that 1 7 out of 25 estate agents surveyed between March and May 1 974 would not rent homes to Aborigines? Does the Minister intend taking any action as a result of this report?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Yes, I have seen Press accounts of what the report stated. My own investigations would indicate that what is alleged is truthful. There is discrimination against Aborigines, especially among estate agents and property owners. We propose to take action by supporting the Attorney-General’s racial discrimination Bill which will make illegal the refusal to let premises to a person simply because of his Aboriginality. Any action based on a person’s race would then be illegal under Commonwealth law.

page 3358

QUESTION

REPATRIATION: PAYMENTS TO DOCTORS

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation received complaints from consultant specialists or visiting medical officers about overdue payment for their services to the Repatriation Department? Is it a fact that payments, often involving a 4-figure sum, are sometimes held up for several weeks? Has any consultant or visiting doctor been told by the Minister or departmental officers that the cause of the delay was the shortage of funds? Can the Minister give an assurance that payments in the future will be regular and prompt?

Senator WHEELDON:
Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have not told anybody that there was a shortage of funds. I do not know whether anybody in my Department has told anybody that. To the best of my knowledge I have received no complaints. I do not know whether anyone in my Department has received any complaints. As apparently Senator DrakeBrockman is aware of somebody who does have some complaints, I will make inquiries as to what has happened about this. As far as I know there is no shortage of funds which would be needed to pay these specialists. I will find out and, when I have an answer, I will let Senator DrakeBrockman know.

page 3359

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE: GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-Has the attention of the Leader of the Government been drawn to a reported statement by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, Mr Lynch, that a number of Government appointed public servants will be ‘for the chopping block’ under a Liberal-Country Party government? Is it not the right of an elected government to make appointments to senior positions in the Public Service and government instrumentalities, and was not that right freely exercised under the last Liberal Party-Country Party Government? Is it not a fact that two of the public servants mentioned in Mr Lynch ‘s threat- Mr Menadue and Dr Wilenski- were both career public servants under the previous Liberal-Country Party Government with distinguished records in the Service? Does the Minister know of any other incident when a supposedly responsible Opposition politician has threatened public servants with the sack? Is it not a fact that such threats could compromise the integrity, morale and efficiency of the Australian Public Service?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-The answer to the first three questions is yes. The answer to the next one is that I am not aware of any other example of this. The answer to the last question also is yes. Threats such as this certainly could compromise the integrity and efficiency of the Public Service. After all, we have determined by an Act of Parliament, whether rightly or wrongly, that there should be permanency in the Public Service. The positions of permanent heads of departments are permanent and even if one of these officers were displaced from a particular position the law to preserve permanency is so strong that he would have to be kept on the public payroll. What the Opposition has done, of course, is undermine that principle. Without moving any proposals in this chamber saying that public servants should have to resign or be dismissed or removed on a change of government it uses the public Press to say that this is what it would do when it took over government. That is the worst possible way in which government can be conducted in this country. If the Opposition thinks that there should be a change of public servants on a change of government- there are arguments for and against such a proposal- why does it not appear before and present this suggestion to the Royal Commission that is inquiring into the organisation of the Public Service? Why does it not introduce a Bill or announce that that is part of its platform and it will be the policy of the government if it is returned to office?

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I have protested against this practice before. The Standing Orders are quite clear and unequivocal and provide that a Minister answering a question is not allowed to debate the matter. I wish you would pull the Leader of the Government into gear on that.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The Leader of the Government will answer the question as he sees fit.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I beg your pardon. My point of order is that a Minister shall not debate a question. That is all I wish to draw to your attention.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Senator Sir Magnus Cormack raises a point of order, the text of which is quite correct. I think it has become established custom that both in the asking and answering of questions all honourable senators take liberties with the Standing Orders. I call Senator Bessell.

page 3359

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER’S OVERSEAS VISIT

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government. In view of the statement in today’s Press by the Prime Minister that his overseas trip is not a luxury, is it not possible for the Prime Minister to use a BAC 1 1 1 from the VIP fleet instead of a chartered Boeing 707 aircraft from Qantas Airways Ltd at a very much higher cost?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I am not aware of the technical details of this matter. I indicated once before that there are all sorts of considerations of a security type which would be insisted upon by other governments as well as our own. I have some little experience of the precautions which are taken when other persons are visiting Australia. I am not aware at all of what aircraft could be substituted for the one which has been chosen. After all, the Government has advisers who look into these matters. The Prime Minister would hardly be making a proposal for one type of aircraft rather than another unless there was technical advice as to what was suitable. Surely, if one is to consider how money should be spent, it should be remembered that at least this Government has not wasted thousands of millions of dollars in the past- there are still more payments to be made- on such ventures as the Vietnam war. The Opposition seems to concentrate on pointing to amounts of money and saying: ‘Here is a terrible expenditure by a Prime Minister of half a million or three-quarters of a million dollars or here is an acquisition of some work of art. How dreadful it is that all Australia is going to fall down because of such expenditure’. All honourable senators opposite have to do is to remind themselves of the awful, wasteful expenditure of billions of dollars on the Vietnam war and they will realise how pitiful are the complaints about the Prime Minister going overseas on the nation’s business.

page 3360

QUESTION

FINANCE COMPANIES

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

-Is the Attorney-General aware that finance companies are refusing to provide consumer credit to the customers of unincorporated traders? Is he also aware that the finance companies are claiming that they are forced by the Trade Practices Act to require sole traders to incorporate their businesses? Does he propose to take any action against finance companies which are causing consumers, as a condition to the obtaining of consumer credit, to sign documents which are supposed to relieve finance companies of their obligations under the Trade Practices Act?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– This question has been raised with me in a number of ways. It has been raised several times inside the House, as I recall it, but a great number of representations certainly have been made to me outside the House. I notice that Senator Guilfoyle looks interested in what I am saying.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– I am interested.

Senator MURPHY:

– In any event it has been raised with me on a number of occasions over the last several weeks. There have been complaints, including complaints from some honourable senators opposite, about finance companies seeking to avoid- I said ‘avoid’, not ‘evade’- obligations under the Trade Practices Act. The Act does not require sole traders and other unincorporated businesses to form companies in order to carry on business. It appears that some finance companies have been putting pressure on sole traders to incorporate their businesses. The finance companies are doing that in order to take advantage of a provision that relieves them of their responsibility for the quality of goods supplied under hire purchase where the dealer who sold the goods on credit can be made responsible under the Act. Those finance companies have found it expedient to misrepresent the position to cover what to many traders is an unpalatable and possibly costly directive from the finance companies. The Government does not propose to see sole traders who personally stand behind their business forced to incorporate because some finance company is unprepared to face up to its obligations under the legislation. If the practice continues it will be necessary for the Parliament to reconsider the position of finance companies in relation to consumer transactions.

The honourable senator also referred to the objectionable attempt by some finance companies to deny consumers the rights that the Parliament has given to them under these laws. The practical effect of what these companies are attempting to do is to require consumers to repay damages the courts have said they are entitled to where the companies are in breach of the law. The companies do not seem to recognise that new rights have been conferred on consumers by this legislation and that the Government intends to see that these rights are made effective. If the practice continues it will be necessary to consider an amendment to the legislation to make it an offence to attempt to force consumers to contract away their protection and rights under the Act. The Senate will be aware that in some areas this is already prevented by the Act.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I wish to assert my rights as a senator in this matter. Will you take into consideration whether an opportunity should be provided for Ministers to incorporate their prepared answers in Hansard?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I will consider your suggestion, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack.

page 3360

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE: APPOINTMENT OF DR P. WILENSKI

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. I ask: Can the Minister indicate whether there were any special reasons for the appointment of Dr Peter Wilenski as the head of the department which includes in its responsibility the important area of immigration? Has Dr Wilenski, who I understand is a migrant, had any experience in the administration of immigration affairs in the source countries? Was consideration given to officers of the former Department of Immigration who have had extensive experience in immigration affairs both within Australia and overseas? Will the Department ensure that those officers are not disadvantaged by the new appointment and that the new head of the Department will have the benefit of their experience at senior appointment level?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The position is that the Minister for Labor and Immigration recommended to Cabinet the appointment of Dr Wilenski to the newly arranged department, which, as Senator Davidson well knows, is not now just the Department of Labor or the Department of Labour and National Service, as it used to be, but the Department of Labor and Immigration. Mr Cameron reported his recommendations to Cabinet. He considered that Dr Wilenski, with all his qualifications, was the most suitable officer for that appointment in view of the new scope of the Department. With respect to the other questions which Senator Davidson has raised about the position of officers of the former Department of Immigration or the Department of Labor, I will try to obtain answers for the honourable senator as soon as I can.

page 3361

QUESTION

REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SCHEME

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
Minister for Labour and Immigration · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration a question in relation to the Government’s Regional Employment Development Scheme which is now gathering impetus. Is the Minister in a position to give any information as to the extent of operation of the scheme and also the number of jobs being provided by the scheme?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The honourable senator will recall that Ministers on the ad hoc committee meet once a week to consider applications made by various interested bodies. Projects have been approved to the extent of about $4.5m. It is estimated that finally a total of $22m will be expended in respect of the projects. The scheme should employ 7,000 or 8,000 people. At present employment has been found for about 1,500 people. I understand that the most marked improvement has been noticed in Tasmania where there has been a downturn in employment. There has been some demand for labour in that State resulting from the RED scheme. Attention, of course, in now being paid to consideration of other projects.

page 3361

QUESTION

CHINA: DRUG TRAFFICKING

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs will recall that a few weeks ago I asked a question based on reports alleging that China was involved in the drug traffic. Is the Minister aware that in 1 96 1 Mr Anslinger, the head of the United States Bureau of Narcotics, alleged that the Chinese communists were responsible for the supply of at least 65 per cent of the illicit narcotic traffic throughout the world and that similar allegations were made in the 13 September 1964 issue of ‘Pravda’ and in 1972 by Dr Peter Chapple of the National Drug Administration and Drug Centre in London? Is he aware of a report of the Japanese Bureau of Narcotics that Chinese communists earn US$1 70m annually from opium smuggling in Japan? In view of the seriousness of these allegations, will the Minister arrange for this matter to be raised in the United Nations so that the allegations can be thoroughly investigated by the world body?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I remember Senator Sim asking me a question about this. I approved an answer to that question. Evidently the honourable senator has not received it yet. As I remember it, all of this is fairly baseless. According to all the authorities we have checked there is no substance in the allegations at all. I shall further check the matter and if there is any further information I shall provide it.

page 3361

QUESTION

OMEGA SYSTEM

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

-My question which I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence refers to the Omega question. Is it correct, as reported in a national newspaper at the weekend, that Omega equipment is already being used in this country? If so, by whose authority is it being used? What is the correct position?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-While the responsibility for answers on this subject really rests with Senator Cavanagh, I am able to say that because of the attention that has been directed to the defence aspects of this matter inquiries have been made. In fact the Australian Post Office recently monitored all the frequencies which would be closely related to the Omega system and it has found that no such operations are at present taking place. The monitoring was conducted only a few days ago. Let me say in addition, speaking on behalf of the Minister for Defence, that there is no such transmitting facility of any sort at North West Cape.

page 3362

QUESTION

ETHIOPIAN AIRWAYS

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral: In view of his recent actions in favour of Junie Morosi, his appointment of her husband Mr Ditchburn, who holds a regional position for Ethiopian Airways, to the Film Board of Review and Mrs Murphy’s continued engagement by Ethiopian Airways, does the Attorney-General consider himself under any sense of obligation to Ethiopian Airways? Will he inform the Senate of any benefits received by him and his wife from Ethiopian Airways by way of free or concessional world travel or in other ways? Further, is he able to inform the Senate what business Ethiopian Airways carries on in Australia or is it merely a front for other, and if so what, activities?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I can inform the honourable gentleman that I am under no obligation to Ethiopian Airways. I am unable to inform the honourable gentleman about the activities of Ethiopian Airways in Australia, and even if I were, that matter is not within my ministerial portfolio. As to any affairs of my wife, I do not intend in this chamber to enter into any matters relating to my wife. I do not think the Senate would expect me to do so and I do not intend to do so.

page 3362

QUESTION

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Has the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs seen an article in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald ‘ last Saturday to the effect that descendants of Pacific islanders brought to Australia as slave labour last century are planning an appeal to the United Nations against what they allege is racial discrimination by Federal and State governments in Australia? Will the Minister advise the Senate of the position in Australia with respect of Pacific islanders? Does he agree with those persons quoted in the article last Saturday that the Government is acting in a discriminatory manner against them?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– Yes, I saw the article. I do not agree that the Government is acting in a discriminatory way against that ethnic group. I think the Constitution permits the making of special laws for any race of people other than normal Australians. Therefore I think the Government would be capable of making special laws for Pacific islanders or their descendants. However, my portfolio of Aboriginal Affairs is under Government direction. We have given a wide interpretation to Aboriginal affairs but that is the extent to which my portfolio goes and the extent to which my Department is able to help. Some people have applied for special assistance as Aborigines but they have had to be rejected, of necessity, because they could claim no Aboriginality although they were dark people of Pacific islands descent.

I believe the article claimed that we were encouraging such people to claim to be Aborigines for the purpose of getting some benefits. While we accept a wide definition for Aboriginals and Aboriginal groups, there is no great inquiry as to the identity of each member of a group; in fact some groups have some members who are not Aboriginals. It could well be that by making false declarations some Pacific islanders are getting some benefits from the Department. This is fraudulent, of course, and is liable to action if fraud can be proved. I suppose some people might claim that if we are going to treat every ethnic group separately we should take in all minority ethnic groups, such as migrants who come here. I have a charter now only in respect of Aboriginals.

page 3362

QUESTION

GREENSLOPES REPATRIATION HOSPITAL

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

-The Minister for Repatriation and Compensation would be aware that moneys have been made available for a major rebuilding program at Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital located in a suburb of Brisbane. Has provision been made for a casualty section in this building program? If not, will he consider such a proposal?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-The policy of the Government is to make provision for casualty sections in the repatriation general hospitals when they are in areas where there are populations not served by other general hospitals. In fact already in the Concord Repatriation General Hospital in a southern suburb of Sydney a casualty section has been provided which is performing a lot of useful work for people who live in that area. We are at the moment examining the position of the Greenslopes Repatriation General Hospital and it is hoped that in the fairly near future we will also have a casualty section operating in that hospital.

page 3362

QUESTION

IMPRISONMENT OF AUSTRALIAN IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Does he recall my asking some 8 days ago, on 3 December, what the Government was doing to protect its nationals when visiting the countries in which they were born and in particular what the Government was doing in relaton to a Mr Mavrinac, an Australian who is currently in gaol in Yugoslavia for criticising the

Yugoslav Government? Has the Minister any further information on this very important and urgent matter? If not, I ask very genuinely, why not?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I do not recall the question. Maybe I was away. But I am informed that we have taken up the matter which was raised by Senator Young. At the moment we have not any reply. I shall see what the latest position is.

page 3363

QUESTION

APPEALS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST IMPORTS

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. How many industrial organisations and individual companies have appealed to the Government in the past 6 months for protection against imports? How many of these applications have been referred to the Industries Assistance Commission and with what result? Will the Leader of the Government endeavour to obtain this information and make it known to the Senate before the recess?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I have no doubt that a number have made some representation and I think a number have been referred to the Industries Assistance Commission. That latter information can be obtained without any difficulty. As to the first part of the question, that information can be obtained but I do not know how long it will take. I shall endeavour to get the information in some form, even in a generalised form, for the honourable senator.

page 3363

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER’S OVERSEAS VISIT

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

-Will the Minister representing the Minister for Defence admit that the Royal Australian Air Force did in fact work out flight plans for the route proposed to be used by the Prime Minister in case the Prime Minister decided in his wisdom to use the Air Force BAC 1 1 1 s for his round the world trip? Is it a fact that had the Prime Minister chosen to use those aircraft the cost to the country would have been at least $200,000 less?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I am not aware that any such calculations have been made by the Air Force but I shall try to get the information for the honourable senator.

page 3363

QUESTION

MERCURY’ NEWSPAPER: POLICY

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister for the Media seen the article in the issue of ‘Nation Review’ of 6 December headed ‘Mercury Editor Holds Breath’ in which it is reported that the Mercury’, a Hobart newspaper, has retaliated against the 5 Tasmanian Labor senators who issued a writ against it for defamation in October by instructing its editorial staff that until the defamation action is resolved the names of the senators are not to appear in any section of the Mercury’ administered by the editorial department? Does the Minister believe that the effect of this so-called retaliation is that, even in relation to the Minister for Agriculture, Senator Wriedt, the 5 Tasmanian senators who are plaintiffs in the court proceedings have been ‘sent to Coventry’ and their existence is not admitted by the Mercury’? Does the Minister view such retaliation as an oppressive act, especially from a medium which asserts the so-calledfreedom of the Press’? In short, is such action by a newspaper which enjoys a monopoly in the south of Tasmania an example of political censorship? Is there any action which the Minister is able to take to end this retaliatory action?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I did read the article referred to by Senator Mcintosh. Let me say straight away that if the facts set out therein are correct I find them incredible. I am appalled at reports that staff of a responsible, or so-called responsible, metropolitan newspaper have been directed to avoid mention of attitudes adopted by and remarks made by members of this chamber, particularly those of a responsible Minister in the Australian Government. It is especially amazing that the reports claim that the directives have come from a news editor. As to what the Australian Government can do about it, I am advised that constitutionally newspapers are the responsibility of the State governments, and therefore I would assume that the matter would be more the responsibility of the Tasmanian Government. Most certainly I will discuss the matter and the contents of the report with my colleague the Attorney-General to ascertain what the Australian Government’s legal position is.

If the report is true I would think that it represents a grave affront to the accepted standards of journalism and I could well appreciate the concern of staff members, as reported in the original article. I am given to understand that the proprietors of the ‘Mercury ‘ newspaper own a 50 per cent interest in radio broadcasting station 7HO and that radio broadcasting station 7HO conducts its news service operations from the office of the ‘Mercury’ newspaper. I intend asking the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to ascertain whether there has been a similar embargo -

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA · LP

– I rise to order because the Minister is not responding in any form of answer to the question asked of him. He was not asked anything about radio stations or the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and I think he is proposing to debate the matter in an intimidatory way, which would be reprehensible. My submission is that he is out of order.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On the point of order -

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- Order! I think we may conclude the matter. I heard the Minister asked whether he intended to take any action. I believe that the Minister is answering that question.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I was distinctly asked by Senator Mcintosh what action, if any, could be taken by me or the Australian Government in the matter. The question relates to the ‘Mercury’ newspaper, the owners of which, as I understand it, have a 50 per cent interest in radio station 7HO in Hobart which operates its news service from the ‘ Mercury ‘ office. I intend asking the Australian Broadcasting Control Board whether radio station 7HO has placed on the 5 Tasmanian senators an embargo similar to that allegedly placed by the ‘Mercury’ newspaper. I have ascertained from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board already that the ‘Mercury’ newspaper has about an 1 1.6 per cent interest in the commercial television station there, but the television station is controlled by the Chief Executive Officer and no one else has any administrative or legal responsibility.

page 3364

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Agriculture: Has his attention been drawn to the Canadian Government’s decision to increase the first advance payment on its current wheat crop by 67 per cent? When making the announcement the Canadian agriculture Minister said that the move was to give wheat growers cash when they most needed it, that is, at the start of the season. To give real impetus to interest in growing wheat with the present world shortage of that cereal which provides the staff of life, will the Minister reconsider increasing the amount of the first advance payment for the current harvest?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-There is no proper analogy between the Canadian position and the Australian position. As I have outlined here on 3 occasions in answer to similar questions concerning liquidity in the wheat industry at present, the payments to Australian wheat growers this season are double those of last year. The last time I was asked this question I said that I did not want to bore the Senate by going through all the details again. They are in the record in Hansard in an answer to a question from Senator Young three or four weeks ago. Canada is in an entirely different situation. Its production figures are not comparable with ours, that is, as between this season’s production and that of last season, and the liquidity of Canadian growers may have demanded and warranted the increase that the Canadian Government is paying. That is not the case in this country.

page 3364

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INFORMATION SERVICE

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for the Media: Is it a fact that the Government has recently established a great propaganda machine in Queensland in the form of, firstly, the Australian Information Service staffed by Mr Glynn May, and a journalist and a photographer; secondly, an information officer, fully equipped and on Telex, Richard Whitington, representing the Prime Minister’s Department, following a request for him contained in a minute from the Queensland Central Executive to the Prime Minister; and thirdly, the Australian Government Liaison Office under the command of Mr Jack Stanaway, a former public relations officer for the Australian Labor Party in Queensland and an unsuccessful applicant for Press secretary to Mr Houston? What is the purpose of this great propaganda machine when Commonwealth Government public relations officers exist in Queensland anyway? What is it all costing and why is it necessary to have 3 separate information services, especially in Queensland?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-So far as the Australian Information Service is concerned, it has always been in existence since being a branch of what was the former News and Information Bureau. The Australian Information Service is responsible for the dissemination abroad of information about Australia and also about Australian Government activities internally. ‘Ever since the section was established many years ago- I think in the early 1940s- it has had this responsibility. So, certainly, it is not true to say that the Australian Information Service has recently been established in Brisbane. Whether or not there has been an increase in staff so far as a photographer is concerned, frankly I would not know. But that service has always been in Queensland. I know very little about the services of Mr Richard Whitington. I think it comes within the purview of my colleagues, the Minister for Health, the Minister for Northern Development and the Minister for Social Security, all of whom are Queensland Ministers. They have arranged amongst themselves for this sort of communication activity.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Are there no Press officers there?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As I understand it- in reply to Senator DrakeBrockman Mr Whitington is employed on the staff of one of them or conjointly amongst three of them. Again, it is not my responsibility. It does not come within my Ministerial portfolio. I am merely trying to be of assistance to the honourable senator. I can tell the honourable senator that only last Monday at a Cabinet meeting the Australian Government decided to extend the area of activity of my Department by establishing an Australian Government liaison service. So far as I am aware, no appointments have yet been made.

page 3365

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Has the attention of the Minister for the Media been drawn to expressions of some concern in the film industry in Australia that the funds available for the Australian Film Development Corporation may not be adequate to provide for a continuing flow of production and employment in this industry in the next 6 or 7 months? Does the Minister regard the $364,000 provided to the Corporation in this year’s Budget as adequate support for the film industry? Will he take steps to ensure that the work opportunities created in the past 2 years are not put at risk by a decline in the Australian Government’s financial support for the film industry?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable senator will remember that earlier this year the Government took a decision to legislate for the establishment of an Australian Film Commission. In making that announcement I mentioned that the Government was setting aside an additional $3.5m for assistance in the development of an Australian indigenous film industry. The legislation was introduced into this chamber in the current sessional period, but the Opposition would not agree to certain clauses in the Bill. Because those clauses were rejected by the Senate I, on behalf of the Government, had to declare the Bill as having failed to pass the Senate. Therefore the industry was deprived of the assistance of this additional $3. 5m.

I can also tell the honourable senator, that at the time of the consideration of the legislation I was in the course of negotiating with my colleague the Treasurer for an additional $1.7m to be made available to the industry during this financial year in the event of the successful passage of the legislation. However, the legislation not having been agreed to by the Opposition, some make-do sort of operation had to be engaged in. I can now inform the Senate that following a review of the levels of investment by the Film Development Corporation I have been recently in touch with my colleague the Federal Treasurer seeking his agreement to a proposal that the Film Development Corporation extend its commitments this financial year by an additional $450,000. The Treasurer has advised me that, depending on the course of the cash flows from the Australian Film Development Corporation in the next two or three months, he agrees that this additional $450,000 should be made available to the Corporation to enable it to continue its investment policies throughout the remainder of this financial year.

page 3365

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION: LIGHTING AIDS IN QUEENSLAND

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware that pilots in Queensland have been advised that should they require aeronautical lighting for night flying operations into Queensland government aerodromes, other than in Brisbane and Townsville, they must give notification of that requirement to the Flight Service Unit or to Air Traffic Control before 4 p.m. and that if this is not done lighting will not be provided? Further, is the Minister aware that in the outback of Queensland, pilots on charter flights of Bush Pilots Airways and the Flying Doctor Service would not always be aware of their proposed duty requirements and flight plans in order to comply with these regulations? Will the Minister have this matter investigated with the aim of providing a better and safer service in relation to the lighting provided at airports in the outback areas of Queensland?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I will take up the question with the Minister for Transport. I am not aware of the circumstances of this matter. As I think we have been informed before, there is a need for a reorganisation of airways facilities under the new proposals. I am prepared to take up with the Minister the matter of notification before 4 p.m. of lighting requirements for night flying in order to see whether some remedial action can be taken or some better arrangements can be made.

page 3365

QUESTION

LIBERAL PARTY LEADERSHIP

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: In view of Mr

Snedden ‘s assertion last week that the attempt to depose him from the Liberal Party leadership was part of the Labor Party’s propaganda exercise, will Senator Murphy assure the Senate that neither the honourable member for Wannon nor the honourable member for Chisholm is a secret Labor Party undercover man?

Senator Missen:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. My point of order is that unfortunately at the moment this is not a matter of government business and it is not in order for the honourable senator to ask a question about it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The point of order is well taken. A question must be related to a matter which is within the province of the Minister to whom it is directed. But I will leave it to the Minister to give the answer.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I can only say that it is quite incorrect to say that either Mr Fraser or the other gentleman is an undercover member of the Labor Party. In fact, I think it seems to be generally recognised that we were bitterly opposed -

Senator Bonner:

- Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The Minister is answering the question and you ruled against it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- No point of order is involved. The Minister might curtail his reply.

Senator Missen:

- Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Earlier I raised a point of order which you upheld. If the point of order is upheld, no answer can be given to that question.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I said before that there was foundation for your point of order but that it is usual for the Minister to be permitted to reply.

Senator MURPHY:

-On behalf of the Government I wish to inform the Senate in reply to the suggestion that has been made that in no way at all would the Government have lent the slightest assistance to the displacement of Mr Snedden from the post of Leader of the Opposition. I would think that all honourable senators can be assured that had any undercover members of the Labor Party been present in the ranks of the Liberal Party their votes would have been cast in favour of retaining Mr Snedden as Leader.

page 3366

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I direct my question to the Minister for the Media. I refer to the answer given to Senator James McClelland in regard to funds for the Australian Film Development Corporation. Does the Minister recall the discussion I held with Mr Stacey, a member of the Corporation, during Senate Estimate Committee hearings in respect of financial arrangements for the forthcoming year? Does the Minister also recall that I pressed the question as to whether the amount of $364,000 represented a reduction in support to the Corporation for this year and that he assured me that all outstanding commitments of the Corporation would be covered because of the revolving fund which was in existence? Does the amount of $450,000, which the Minister has now mentioned will be made available to the Corporation, represent a new program for the Corporation in this year?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I cannot remember all the details of the discussion that took place at the Senate Estimates Committee hearings but I think the honourable senator will remember that I did mention at one of the hearings that I had reached an arrangement with my colleague the Treasurer, Mr Crean, that should the level of investment finance available to the Australian Film Development Corporation fall to such an extent that the Corporation could not invest to the same degree as it invested last financial year in Australian produced films, he would give sympathetic consideration to any application that I might make to him on behalf of the Corporation to top up its investment fund in order to enable it to invest to the same extent it was able to invest last financial year. As a result of the passage of the Film Commission Bill not being secured in this chamber I made approaches to my colleague the Treasurer requesting him to consider sympathetically the topping up of the investment fund of the Corporation. It is as a result of those representations to my colleague the Treasurer that he has agreed to another $450,000 being made available to the Corporation this year having in mind the flow off that comes from its present cash investments to enable it to invest in Australian feature film productions at the rate of investment which it undertook last financial year.

page 3366

QUESTION

FILM AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for the Media. Does Film Australia come within his area of responsibility? Does Film Australia produce documentary and information films which are sold at home and abroad? Can the Minister advise whether there is an audience for these productions overseas?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Film Australia is the film production unit of the Australian Government and of course is a section of my Department It had been intended by the Government to transfer the activities of Film Australia to the Australian Film Commission had the legislation been enacted but of course, the Bill not having been passed by the Senate, Film Australia still remains an entity of my Department. Film Australia does not receive any investment support from the Australian Film Development Corporation. The Australian Government makes available about $4m to Film Australia for production and distribution for and on behalf of the Australian Government. A number of those productions are now being shown in the United States. Film Australia’s North American advertising campaign is due to get under way this month and there are about 30 commercial advertisements on behalf of Film Australia going into United States educational magazines. I assure the honourable senator that Film Australia productions are receiving very wide coverage not only in north and south American countries but also throughout the world.

page 3367

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND ELECTION RESULTS: STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and preface it with these remarks: Yesterday I asked him a question about the Prime Minister insulting the intelligence of the people of Queensland as a result of the vote on Saturday. In reply he gave me a long tirade about the gerrymander in Queensland. I ask him now whether he has seen the ‘Australian’ of yesterday’s date in which it was stated:

For things are even worse than they first appear for the Labor Party in Queensland: Ironically, without the gerrymander, the ALP would almost certainly have won only one or two seats instead of about eleven.

Has he also seen the comments by Mr Hawke, the President of the Australian Labor Party, and by Mr Egerton, the Vice-President of the Australian Labor Party, condemning the Government for its attitude to Queensland and saying that it lacks grass roots appeal and that it is drowning in the think tank in Mr Whitlam ‘s office? If so, does he not agree that the people of Queensland were very intelligent in acting as they did?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The honourable senator suggests that the Australian Labor Party would have won only one or two seats in Queensland if there had not been a gerrymander. It would have been an impossible state of affairs if, having secured over one-third- 36 per cent- of the votes, the Labor Party had ended up with only one or two seats in a House of 82 members. Surely that would indicate that whatever the system might be called if not a gerrymander, it would be utterly undemocratic. I turn now to the other aspect of the honourable senator’s question. If there is one thing that distinguishes the Labor Party from its opponents it is our ability to learn. We will apply ourselves with resolution to overcoming any errors that we have made in explaining our policies to the people of Queensland. I understand that in some areasfor instance, Rockhampton- the vote held very well.

Senator Milliner:

– It increased.

Senator MURPHY:

– It increased. I spoke to the candidate there and he told me that perhaps the significance of and the reason for that was that very great care had been taken to explain the Federal policies to the people of that area and when they understood what the Federal policies were they stood by the Labor Party in the election. That is one lesson we all ought to learn. Certainly the Government draws no comfort from the results of the election. We will apply ourselves with diligence to overcoming any errors that we have made and in carrying to the people of Queensland the message that the Australian Government regards them with as much affection as it regards people in any other part of Australia. We want them to co-operate with us in the great things that are envisaged and are being done by this Government. We hope that they will come with us on the next occasion we go to the polls.

page 3367

QUESTION

DEGREE COURSES FOR TEACHERS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. The Minister recently announced plans to encourage teachers to upgrade their qualifications. It was reported that from next year teachers with diplomas from teachers’ colleges will be eligible for means tested financial assistance for all years of a degree course in arts, science, economics or other courses related to teaching. The help will be extended to students dissatisfied with present courses who wish to transfer to a teacher education course. As state trained teachers are bonded for 3 years, nongovernment trained teachers would be able to take advantage of such a plan immediately. Can the Minister advise of plans to come to an arrangement with the States to allow all teachers to take advantage of this offer immediately?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not quite sure of the matters raised by the honourable senator. I will discuss them with my colleague, the Minister for Education, secure the information for her and ensure that it is given to her.

page 3368

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Senator RAE:

– I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: Did he authorise his ministerial colleague, Mr Bryant, to publish to the Public Accounts Committee of the Parliament some 250 pages of confidential and other documents of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs? If not, does the Minister propose to take any action in regard to Mr Bryant? Is so, what action? What steps is the Minister taking following the. accusations made on oath by Mr Bryant that his departmental head, Mr Dexter, had committed perjury, had been disloyal, was incapable of communicating with his Minister and was directly responsible for financial irregularities in the Department? Who does the Minister believe to be the one who is telling the truth, Mr Bryant or Mr Dexter?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-I did not authorise Mr Bryant to submit anything to the Public Accounts Committee. I believe the document is a priviliged document while it is before the Committee. I have not got a copy and have not seen a copy. I will not sit in judgment to decide who to believe or who is telling the truth on this question. Mr Bryant is a responsible Minister of the Crown. I think he is quite capable of putting before the Committee- he possibly had some responsibility to do so- what he believes are the facts relating to certain happenings while he was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I have perused the evidence given by my departmental heads and have the greatest confidence in what they have done and what they have submitted to the Committee. As the matter is before a committee I suggest we wait for its report.

page 3368

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I call Senator Everett.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I wonder whether on this day, being the day it is, and there are several senators who have been rising to ask questions for at least an hour, further questions may be permitted. The matter is in the hands of the Leader of the Government.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– We have a certain procedure. Very great difficulty is caused if one senator is allowed to ask a question and not the others. Some senators then wonder why one question is allowed and not another. I indicated to everyone that we would be rigid in our attitude to the time for questions. Mr Deputy President, may I suggest, with respect, that as you have called Senator Everett, you allow him to ask his question and question time should then be concluded.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- There have been some questions and answers which I could well have rejected today. If the Leader of the Government will allow it I will take a question from either side. I call Senator Everett.

page 3368

QUESTION

TASMANIAN GOVERNMENT: LIQUIDITY PROBLEMS

Senator EVERETT:
TASMANIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Agriculture in his capacity as representative of the Treasurer. I draw attention to the continuing spate of publicity in the Tasmanian media with respect to the financial difficulties currently, and temporarily I understand, of the Tasmanian Government which are of such an extent that, as I indicated in a similar question last week, teachers will not receive their holiday pay when they leave work before Christmas. I ask the Minister Has any request been made by the Tasmanian Government to the Australian Government for temporary assistance in its liquidity difficulty. If so, what is the position? If not, does the Australian Government stand ready to enter into discussions with the Tasmanian Government to see whether there is any proper way in which it can assist that State Government?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I am aware of the Press comment concerning this matter. Senator Everett, of course, raised it some 2 weeks ago. There has been no request to the Federal Treasury from the Tasmanian Premier, in respect of assistance over any liquidity problems that may apply in the State Treasury. It is possible under the Loan Council arrangement for a State to draw on treasury bills at nominal rates of interest where it finds that it has a liquidity problem. This mechanism is available to any State at its discretion. If this position is correct, why the Tasmanian Government has not requested any particular assistance I cannot say, but I certainly could give the assurance that if such a request were forthcoming my colleague the Treasurer would be only too willing to arrange immediate consultation with the Tasmanian authorities if they felt that that was necessary.

page 3369

QUESTION

REDFERN MAIL EXCHANGE

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. Is the Government taking any special steps to move the large backlog of mail which is accumulating as a result of the rolling strikes which have occurred and apparently which are proposed to be continued prior to Christmas? If the Government is not taking any such special steps in this matter or does not propose to do so, can it guarantee that Christmas mail will be delivered on time and prior to Christmas?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I have been in almost daily contact with the Secretary of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union and Bob Hawke. I was advised during the week that the dispute was in the hands -

Senator Withers:

– Who is running the Post Office?

Senator BISHOP:

– As everybody knows, whenever there are important stoppages or national stoppages, the most effective method of dealing with them in an organised way, where there are factions in the work force, is to support in every way the taking over of the disputes by the Australian Council of Trade Unions which then has power to control all the elements in the disputes. For that reason I have had discussions with the Secretary of the Postal Workers Union and the President of the ACTU, and the advice given to me was that the postal workers had put the dispute in the hands of the ACTU. In addition, the Secretary of the APWU advised me that an appeal was being lodged to the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That appeal has now been lodged and the reasons for the appeal have been stated. It must be clear that the postal workers have a claim and feel aggrieved.

I am taking whatever steps are possible. The President of the ACTU has drawn to the attention of Mr Slater and the union that once the ACTU takes control of the dispute actions of the kind that we saw yesterday, which were unfortunate, should not obtain. Without getting into an area of controversy which may make the situation worse, I say it is deplorable that only 400 members of the staff at the Redfern Mail Exchange which numbers about 2,500 should make a decision confronting the policy of the federal executive of the union. I am assured by Mr Slater that action is being taken to ensure that the federal executive will carry on its activities within the framework of the ACTU and be bound by ACTU rules. It will be able to ask the Full Bench of the Commission to hear the appeal next week in which case, I would imagine, the dispute will be, if not over, at least controlled.

As Senator Durack knows, in the area of the Redfern Mail Exchange, which has always been a very difficult area, I have allowed one of my officers, whom I should have on my staff helping me with my duties, to work full time on corresponding and communicating with the unions. We have had a strike free period of about 6 months. It is unfortunate that any section of a union should imperil a system which has paid off and been of benefit to the union and the postal employees generally. If that system does not work I shall be forced to take some other measures. I am doing as much as I can to overcome the situation. It is a very serious one, but I think that action is proceeding along the right path.

page 3369

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-Mr Deputy President, I ask that further questions go on notice.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- I regret that other honourable senators who have been rising are unable to ask further questions.

page 3369

QUESTION

DUNGCA FAMILY: ENTRY TO AUSTRALIA

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– During question time yesterday Senator Drake-Brockman requested that I table the file relating to the entry into Australia of the Dungca family. In reply I promised that I would do all I could to facilitate the tabling of the documents referred to. I now advise the Senate that Senator Douglas McClelland and I, in the company of Senator Drake-Brockman, viewed the complete file. Later, with Senator Drake-Brockman, I discussed the file with the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Withers. We all agree that for the reason that the file contains a reference which may damage individuals it should not be tabled. I add that there is nothing in the file which reflects on any departmental officer or on any member of the Parliament or the staff.

page 3369

WORLD POPULATION CONFERENCE

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table the report of the Australian delegation to the World Population Conference at Bucharest in August this year, together with a statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) relating to the report.

page 3370

AUSTRALIAN ARBITRATION INSPECTORATE

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table the first report on the operations of the Australian Arbitration Inspectorate for the period 1 January 1973 to 30 June 1974.

page 3370

COMMONWEALTH CAPITAL FUND FOR ABORIGINAL ENTERPRISES

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report on the administration of the Commonwealth Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 3370

PUBLIC BROADCASTING

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I table the working paper on public broadcasting prepared by the Department of the Media.

page 3370

QUESTION

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-(Tasmania)-I present the fiftieth report from the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, being a general report for 1974.I move:

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator DEVITT:

– I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the report.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator DEVITT:

-I move:

I ask for leave to make my remarks on the resumption of the debate.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 3370

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-I seek leave to move a motion for a reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator GIETZELT:

– I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3370

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported.

Aged Persons Hostels Bill 1974

Banking Bill 1974

Taxation Administration Bill 1974

Handicapped Persons Assistance Bill 1974

Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Bill 1974

Arbitration ( Foreign Awards and Agreements) Bill 1974

Australian Development Assistance Agency Bill 1 974

page 3370

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– ( New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate)- I inform the Senate that this morning, at 1 1 a.m., Dr J. F. Cairns was sworn in as Treasurer of Australia and Mr Crean was sworn in as Minister for Overseas Trade.

page 3370

TAXATION ADMINISTRATORS

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That the Senate expresses its confidence in the Commissioner of Taxation, Sir Edward Cain, and the First Assistant Commissioner of Taxation, Mr John Curtin.

page 3370

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) proposed:

That order of the day No. 6 be called on before order of the day No. 5.

Senator WITHERS:
South AustraliaLeader of the Opposition in the Senate

– Before the question is put in relation to this motion, I would seek this opportunity to speak in relation to the placing of business.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Could the question on the motion be put first?

Senator WITHERS:

-No, otherwise I would be out of order. I state that I am not opposed to the motion. I use the opportunity to speak in relation to a matter. The Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Douglas McClelland) will recall that my friend and colleague, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, presented the Remuneration Bill (No. 2) 1974 [No. 2]. I think it is buried in the notice paper as item No. 18. Sir Magnus will not be present after lunch. But he has said that he will leave me in charge of his Bill. I was wondering whether the Minister could indicate that if Government business is dealt with in a reasonably expeditious style today and if some time is left over there may be an opportunity to call on the Bill presented by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Manager of Government Business in the Senate · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Senator Sir Magnus Cormack spoke to me yesterday to see whether it was possible to have this Bill brought on for debate this morning because he has to leave Canberra some time this afternoon. I told him that in all the circumstances, the position of Government business being what it is, I doubted very much whether we would be able to bring it on for debate either yesterday or this morning. That is still the situation this morning. The honourable senator told me that he would be leaving the matter in the hands of Senator Withers. He also stated that because he believes the matter to be of considerable importance he hoped that the Government would be able to find time in this busy legislative period to enable his point of view to be put. I give my assurance to Senator Withers that, so far as I am concerned as Manager of Government Business in the Senate, depending on the state of the Government’s legislation I will endeavour to make time available to Senator Withers to enable him to put the matter on behalf of Senator Sir Magnus Cormack.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3371

KING ISLAND SHIPPING SERVICE AGREEMENT BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 December on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

-The Senate is debating the King Island Shipping Service Agreement Bill, the purpose of which is to approve an agreement between the Australian Government and the Government of Tasmania for the provision of $ 1.45 m by way of loan from the Australian Government to Tasmania in order to finance the purchase on behalf of the Transport Commission of Tasmania of the motor vessel ‘Straitsman’. In the few minutes before the Senate adjourned last night I had deplored the fact that the Opposition had deliberately chosen to turn the debate on this beneficent measure into a low standard party political brawl. That fact was the more to be deplored because of the record of the Liberal-Country Party Opposition when in government in 2 respects. I briefly restate them. In the last 6 months of the LiberalCountry Party Government in 1 972 that is, between June and December, the ‘Straitsman’ in fact was not operating that service because it had encountered economic difficulties. The then Liberal-Country Party Government deliberately chose to allow the King Island service to remain virtually non-existent, apart from what little relief could be afforded. Its attitude was expressed in a letter dated 30 August 1972 written by the then Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, to the Premier of Tasmania. I have the authority of the Premier to quote from that letter. In order to save time, I seek leave of the Senate to have the letter incorporated in Hansard.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The letter read as follows)-

Prime Minister

CANBERRA

30 August 1972

Dear Mr Reece,

I refer to the previous correspondence between us concerning the State’s request for financial assistance for the shipping service to King Island, and the discussions that have been held between our officers on this matter.

As the Commonwealth understands the position, the State is requesting either a grant of $300,000, or a loan of that amount on concessional terms as to interest, to enable the State to relieve R. H. Houfe & Co. Pty Ltd of its financial problems so that the vessel the ‘Straitsman’ can resume its service to King Island forthwith. It would seem that the judgment has been made that the discharge of the Company’s liabilities to an amount of $300,000 is sufficient to enable the resumption of the shipping service.

The Commonwealth has noted that the State Parliament has passed the Bill introduced by your Government to guarantee the repayment of monies proposed to be borrowed by R. H. Houfe & Co. Ltd up to $300,000 from any source approved by your Government, and the payment of interest thereon. It is also understood that the Company has been engaged in negotiations for a loan to be guaranteed under this legislation.

This action by the State is of course consistent with its responsibility to see that its community on King Island has available to it an adequate shipping service. Having regard to the security involved in a guarantee from the State Government, it would not be unrealistic to expect that a loan should be forthcoming from commercial sources on reasonable terms.

In these circumstances, and having regard to the provision for a loan to the shipping operator in the King Island Port Facilities Agreement (to which I referred in earlier correspondence), it seems clear that your Government does not now have to consider providing a loan to the Company. This means, in turn, that in the current circumstances the question of whether the $300,000 could be found from the State’s Budget can be set aside, and that there is no need for the

Commonwealth to consider as an alternative the provision of this amount to the State.

You indicated in your telegram of 1 8 July that you saw the provision of Commonwealth assistance as a grant or lowinterest loan as a means of aiding the viability of the shipping service. This would, of course, amount to subsidisation, as well as the financing, of the shipping service. However, I am advised that the information supplied by the Company indicated that operations by the ‘Straitsman’ are estimated to show a small surplus for a year ahead, after allowing for the raising of a loan of $300,000, interest on the loan at 8 per cent per annum, and depreciation on the ship. If it eventuated that the Company could not carry the full rate of interest, on the above figures amounting to $24,000 per annum in the first year, any subsidy that may be necessary in this respect would be too small in relation to the State ‘s Budget to justify the Commonwealth giving consideration to providing assistance for it to the State.

Moreover, the Commonwealth stated its attitude on the matter of subsidisation of the shipping service when it made its offer of financial assistance totalling $1,355,000 towards the development of the port at Grassy. Your predecessor, in his letter of 7 April 1 972, accepted this offer but he went on to say that the State could not unreservedly renounce the right to approach the Commonwealth at any time requesting a further subsidy arrangement. You indicated a similar view in your letter of 9 June 1972.

On this matter the Commonwealth can understand the State wishing to reserve the right to approach it at any time concerning a further subsidy arrangement. The Commonwealth wished to make it clear that the shipping subsidy previously provided was to cease when the new ship commenced to operate, and that in the Commonwealth’s view the State should carry full responsibility for any future subsidy it thought to be necessary. This is of course of some relevance to the present circumstances. It is noted that, as with the Commonwealth, the State has discontinued the subsidy it formerly paid in respect of the service.

The Commonwealth Government plans to introduce legislation for the financial assistance towards the port development as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

William McMahon

The Honourable E. E. Reece, M.H.A.,

Premier of Tasmania,

HOBART, Tas. 7000

Senator EVERETT:

-The crux of the letter, expressing the Commonwealth ‘s attitude at that time, is contained in these sentences:

The Commonwealth wished to make it clear -

This is Mr McMahon writing- that the shipping subsidy previously provided was to cease when the new ship -

That is the ‘Straitsman’- commenced to operate, and that in the Commonwealth’s view the State should carry full responsibility for any future subsidy it thought to be necessary.

That was the clear attitude of the LiberalCountry Party Government of the day. The second reason for which I deplore the attitude of the Opposition last night to this Bill is that it was the Opposition, when in government, which by a confidence trick practised on the Liberal Premier of Tasmania of the day, Mr Bethune, got itself out of the obligation that it had carried since 1965 of granting a subsidy of $3.35 a ton, originally $5 a ton. It got itself out of that obligation by the specious device of offering a grant of $677,000 to the Tasmanian Government to pay for half the cost of development of the new port facilities at Grassy- a very good business deal, Mr Deputy President, when you can liquidate an obligation to pay $150,000 a year and capitalise it over 4½ years payments. Your nod and your business acumen is it, indicate that you agree with me. It was a very good deal for the Australian Government but not for the people of King Island.

However, by contrast with that, the fact is that in 2 years the present Government has cooperated with the Tasmanian Government to create the basis for a regular and adequate shipping service for King Island, and it has done that in 2 ways. Firstly, the Australian Minister for Transport, Mr Charles Jones, approved the importation of the vessel ‘Rah’, and I am pleased to inform the Senate that the ‘Rah’, arrived in Australian waters yesterday and has berthed. I discussed her immediate future with the Tasmanian Minister for Transport, Mr Chisholm, by phone this morning and he informed me that it is expected that after necessary tests and trials which are to be carried out immediately the vessel will be in actual service before the end of the month. The second way in which the present Government has co-operated with the Tasmanian Government to ensure a regular and adequate service to King Island is in relation to the agreement which is the subject matter of this Bill. The position is that the Straitsman’ will be back in service by approximately the middle of next year after extensive refitting and recommissioning have been carried out. It should be recorded that a contract for the work worth approximately $750,000 was let by the Tasmanian Government to the Port of Launceston Authority. So much for the contrasting attitudes of the 2 Governments.

I want to pass briefly to a matter that was mentioned last night by Senator Bessell- and again I deplore this. He poured cold water on the capacity of the ‘Rah’ to operate a service from Grassy properly and he referred to so-called deficiencies. Again, in discussions this morning the Tasmanian Minister for Transport, Mr Chisholm, also deplored the fact that there have been many persons who have posed as knowledgeable critics who have no qualifications to be critics of the position regarding the ‘Rah’.

By spreading what are false stories, they continue to blight the King Island situation.

The fact is that the ‘Rah’ was bought with the full knowledge that it would be necessary, in order to achieve completely efficient operations, for certain modifications to be made to the berthing facilities at Grassy. The vessel was inspected before its purchase by Captain Houfe, the most knowledgeable person there is in relation to the King Island shipping service. His experience contrasts very strongly with that of some of the illinformed critics who have sought to speak on this matter. Mr Chisholm has informed me that expert engineers on behalf of the Tasmanian Transport Commission have expressed the view that there is no doubt whatsoever that with the small modifications which it was foreseen would be necessary- they are mainly to the ramp facilitiesthe ‘Rah’ will operate a completely efficient service.

In view of all the tribulation through which the King Islanders have passed over recent years, I feel that it is deplorable and it should not pass notice that even now, with the help of the present Australian Government, when the end is in sight with respect to the shipping difficulties pf King Island a continuing attempt is being made to throw cold water on what is being done. The evidence of that is to be found in what Senator Bessell said last night and the insinuation of Senator Rae by way of interjection that it was a case of bad management. Obviously this was an attempt to discredit the Tasmanian Government.

This is how politics is being continually intruded into this situation; and I say that it is time that it stopped. The simple fact is that the people of King Island are tired of the political antics of the Opposition. This is an Opposition which has double standards- one standard when it is in office, as expressed in the letter of 30 August 1972 by Mr McMahon, and another standard when it is in Opposition as expressed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate by Opposition spokesmen on this Bill. If I can repeat an expression which seems to me to fit the bill and which has been used in relation to those Opposition spokesmen, they are very shallow water sailors.

The people of King Island want the long era of inadequate and ill-fated shipping services to be ended. They do not seek charity and they despise the political antics of the Opposition in relation to this matter. I confidently expect that we are on the eve of a new era in relation to the King Island shipping service, an era in which I hope Party politics will give way to a true appreciation of the resilience of the people of King Island and a recognition that they are for the first time in many years about to have a regular and adequate shipping service. This is all the more necessary because it is pleasing to be able to inform the Senate that the Tasmanian Government is very hopeful of significant extensions to the mining operations on King Island- both the mineral sands undertaking and the PekoWallsend scheelite mines. If those significant projected developments take place, it will be essential that there should be a regular, adequate and reliable shipping service which, I believe, is about to be established for the first time.

I mention one point only in conclusion. Both in another place and here, rather strangely it seemed to me, the question was asked by those who led for the Opposition in the debate on this Bill as to what the explanation was for the fact that the purchase of the ‘Straitsman’ was achieved at a cost of $1,000,070 whereas this Bill provides in the agreement for a loan to the Tasmanian Government of $1.4 15m. Those who ask that question obviously have not read the Agreement that is included in the Bill. The Schedule to the Bill, which sets out the Agreement in full, indicates quite clearly that it is not only the purchase of the ‘Straitsman’ that is being subsidised by way of this loan from the Australian Government, but it is- I quote from the Bill:

  1. . together with additional ship ‘s equipment and some fork lift trucks and has had the vessel surveyed and certain alterations made at an estimated total cost of $ 1 ,4 1 5,000;

The explanation need never have been sought. It was to be found in the Bill itself, if the Opposition had been interested enough to read it. I enthusiastically support this Bill.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– We are discussing a Bill which provides a loan of $1.4 15m to the Tasmanian Government to purchase the ‘Straitsman’ and to provide a permanent and regular shipping operation to King Island. I am pleased that the Opposition is not opposing the Bill. Like Senator Everett, I am disappointed at the tone raised by the Opposition in the debate in this place and in the other place. I am disappointed that so many red herrings should have been drawn across the Agreement. All of them have been settled by Senator Everett. I am disappointed that the debate in this place should be used as a vehicle for a personal attack on the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) and that the debate in the other place was used for a personal attack on Mr Davies.

Senator Rae:

– It was used to reply to one made by him.

Senator GRIMES:

-We know that Senator Rae is very sensitive on the issue of transport for King Island and Tasmania in general, just as he is very sensitive on the issue of education. Those of us who were around during the last election campaign know why. Last night he extended his speech to include remarks on the alleged neglect of Tasmanian shipping problems as well as King Island shipping problems by this Government. In fact he used the word ‘dilatory ‘ to describe the actions of the present Government. I believe that is an extraordinary expression to use in view of the former government’s record. As Senator Everett demonstrated, the former Government was dilatory and obstructive in allowing the Straitsman’ to lie idle for 6 months and in giving no assistance- not even a loan, a promise, a guarantee or anything else- to the company in its liquidity problems. Senator Rae has told the Senate of the committee- composed of himself, Senator Wright and Senator Townley- which investigated the shipping problems of King Island. He knows that on King Island the thing that is remembered about that committee is the remark by Senator Wright that the warden of King Island was a veritable ignoramus. This was the standard of comment that came from that committee, and it is no surprise that nothing came out of it.

We have heard also a petulant apologia on how the good senator asked an endless number of questions and wrote an endless number of letters on the subject when he was in government, but Senator Rae knows that the people of Tasmania know that all the words that were written and spoken during the 23 years that the Opposition Parties were in government mean nothing, and that it is the actions that flow from the words that bring results and satisfy the people. The people showed this in the last election. Senator Everett demonstrated that by removing the subsidy on the King Island shipping service the previous Government was obstructionist and dilatory as far as shipping to Tasmania was concerned. It was dilatory and obstructive in many other ways. From 1970 to 1972 it indulged in a series of actions that disadvantaged the whole Tasmanian shipping situation as well as the King Island shipping situation. In 1970 and 1971 the freight rates to Tasmania were increased by 121A per. cent; subsidies on dense cargo were removed, resulting in a 25 per cent increase in freight rates between Sydney and Tasmania; heavy cargo concessions were removed, resulting in a 22 per cent increase; and surcharges were imposed on hazardous cargo, resulting in a 20 per cent increase. Concessions for industrial machinery were removed, resulting in 1 8 per cent increases. I am sure that many letters were sent by Senator Rae and other Tasmanian Liberal senators at the time about this matter, but the simple fact is that the result of these letters was nil. I suppose the main reason was that the then Minister for Shipping and Transport was a Country Party Minister. The Country Party has one criterion on when subsidies will apply and that is whether it will gain Country Party votes. There are no Country Party votes in Tasmania.

I sympathise with the difficulties Senator Rae had, but to reply to those difficulties by accusing this Government of being dilatory, obstructive or anything else is ludicrous. In the 2 years that this Government has been in this office, $lm has been given as a general transport subsidy for the passenger service across Bass Strait. There has been a $2m subsidy given for outward freight from Tasmania. A royal commission has been set up to settle this issue once and for all. Those opposite, including Senator Rae, who scream about Government spending and scream about excess Government spending, and those who like Mr Snedden claim that they will reduce Government spending across the board by 8 per cent, will get nowhere with the people of Tasmania, King Island or with us by standing up and saying that we are not spending enough and that we are neglecting Tasmania. They removed the subsidies and they increased the fares. All the subsidies that apply now were introduced by this Government in the last 2 years. I welcome this Bill.

Senator Rae:

– Tell us about the ones you took off as well.

Senator GRIMES:

-The people of King Island will welcome this Bill.

Senator Rae:

– Like they welcomed the withdrawal of the air subsidy.

Senator GRIMES:

– I am glad that, despite the personal attacks and the inane interjections, Senator Rae supports this Bill. I hope that when the shipping agreement runs out he will support moves to give the Australian National Line the power at least to contract as a freight forwarder so that further improvement will occur. I hope that when that occurs, he will not bow to the vested interests of the freight forwarders and oppose it. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– in reply- I thought at the time Senator Bessell and Senator Rae spoke that there were a number of points that needed answering, but I think Senator Everett and Senator Grimes, speaking on this Bill, have answered all the points raised, including the political points that were made in an attempt to get political propaganda out of this move. I do not wish to say anything else in reply, except to mention the matter that Senator Rae has raised about questions he has asked over a period of time. I know that Senator Rae and Senator Wright have been very insistent in asking me questions about the shipping service to Tasmania. As their questions were directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, one would expect that the answers would not be furnished straight away but would be referred to the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones). When a question is referred to a Minister whom I am representing, his office is informed by telephone of the question. The pinks received from the Hansard staff are sent to his office. I know that anything I said I would refer to the Minister for Transport or on which I would obtain information from the Minister for Transport has been referred to his office. A question seeking information could well be dealt with by the Minister’s office without reference to the Minister. How many of the questions I said would be referred to the Minister actually came to the Minister’s attention or how many times the information was supplied by his office I do not know.

Of course Senator Rae is much concerned about the Minister recognising the insistence of representations by Mr Davies and making the statement that the Liberal Party was not concerned and has made no representations. I know the Minister and he does not tell untruths. I can only think that he was saying that Mr Davies was continually on his doorstep making personal representations of a kind he had not received from the Opposition to any degree. I just want to correct the record. As there is complete agreement with the Bill and as every question raised, including the question of the difference between the purchase price and the sum allocated, have been answered, I thank the Opposition for. its support of this Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3375

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I wish to make a personal explanation about a misrepresentation.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marriott)- Are you applying for leave?

Senator MURPHY:

-No, I do not think it is necessary.

Senator Withers:

– Leave is granted anyway.

Senator MURPHY:

-I thank honourable senators. I refer to an article published in the Daily Telegraph’ of 1 1 December 1974-that is, this morning. The article is entitled ‘Stabbed in the Back: Murphy’s Reply Disowns Cairns’ and was written by Chris Forsyth. The publication was untruthful as to what was said in the Senate and as to what occurred. The suggested inference is false and malicious and its purpose is malicious and mischievous. Dr Cairns has informed me that he agrees with what I have just said.

page 3375

HEALTH INSURANCE LEVY ASSESSMENT BILL 1974 [No. 2]

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 December on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

- Mr Deputy President, may I suggest that the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill 1974 (No. 2), the Health Insurance Levy Bill 1974 (No. 2) and the Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1974 (No. 3) be dealt with in a cognate debate as they are related matters?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marriott)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The 3 Bills to which I have referred are levy Bills which will provide funds for the Hayden health scheme. They cover proposals which have already been debated in the Senate this year and which were rejected by the Opposition. The attitude of the Opposition can be stated quite briefly: It totally rejects the 3 Bills concerned. It will be recalled that last week we amended the National Health Bill (No. 2). We amended it so that we could reject the provisions which had been made with regard to the control of voluntary health funds. We regarded these proposals as an attempt to ruin the voluntary health funds in Australia and as a first step towards the introduction of the costly and compulsory tax financed system of nationalised health care.

Evidently the Government is determined to ignore the many adverse reactions which have been expressed about its scheme. I refer to some of them. I have before me a Press statement which was released on 8 December this year by 3 groups in the community- the doctors of the medical profession, the private hospitals and the health benefit funds. It will be realised that the co-operation of these 3 groups is essential if the Australian Government’s health scheme is to be successful. These groups have confirmed their opposition to the scheme. They also felt they should state that they think it is indefensible that the Government should plan to spend $1.58m on a campaign to promote the scheme, the objective of the campaign clearly being to urge the Australian people to accept the scheme. The professional bodies I have mentioned have rejected it. The most recent poll conducted of the Australian people showed that 56 per cent of the voters want to pay their own way and reject the concept of a compulsory health scheme as has been outlined by the Government.

There are other matters that I think should be stated and recorded at this time. In particular, I am indebted to a very thoughtful speech delivered by Professor Richard Downing, the Ritchie Professor of Research in Economics at the University of Melbourne, and Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, in Melbourne on 21 November. In it he put forward some thoughts which should be considered by the Australian people when they are contrasting the present scheme, which is based on voluntary contributions, and the proposed Hayden health scheme. Professor Downing talked about 3 government proposals which need to be looked at when we are talking about the commitments that the Government is taking on behalf of the people. He spoke of the Woodhouse compensation scheme, which is being dealt with by a committee of the Senate at this time, the Hancock superannuation scheme and the Hayden health scheme.

He indicated that the concepts involved in those 3 schemes would entail a total expenditure of something like $4,900m, which is about 10 per cent of the gross domestic product of this country. Allowing for the fact that governments are already spending about $2, 100m on some of those areas the additional cost would be $2, 800m, which would represent an increase of 5.7 per cent of the gross domestic product. Of this new expenditure 1.4 per cent is to be raised from general tax revenues and 4.3 per cent through contributions by beneficiaries. It is interesting to note that the additional burden will fall mainly on the lower income people who are not now contributing to a private health fund scheme. The 3 proposals would increase the flow of funds through public accounts from 32.5 per cent of the gross domestic product to 38.2 per cent. That increase would mean that taxation in this country would need to be increased from 22.3 per cent to 28 per cent on present rates. It is extraordinary to think that there would have to be an increase from 22.3 per cent to 28 per cent to finance schemes which are imposed by the Government upon the people.

It seems to me that we should remind the people of Australia that when they are thinking of these new proposals which have been offered to them they should also take into consideration that it is they who will be paying for them. They have not been offered to the people by the Government at a cost to the Government; rather they will be imposed upon the people by the Government at a cost to the people themselves. The people will have to pay for what may in some cases be desirable schemes but what will certainly be costly ones. That speech by Professor Downing is, I think, timely at this juncture because it is the costs that we must consider when we are looking at the economics of our country at this time and the responsibility that we will have for programs that are decided and imposed upon the people by the Government.

One thing that we ought to do in relation to the present debate about the health care scheme envisaged for this country is to ask ourselves some questions. Perhaps it is not a matter of asking ourselves whether there should be a scheme of medical and hospital insurance but really of asking ourselves what sort of scheme there should be. I think that those are the things which have been outlined repeatedly by the Opposition. They are matters which we feel that we need to assert again. It is not a matter of saying that we do not believe that there should be a health care scheme or that there should be some scheme which will involve the people in health care and in the arrangements which relate to it but rather a dispute about the means of providing health care. We ask: Should it be a government sponsored compulsory scheme or should there be a situation in which people have some choice and exercise that choice and accept some personal responsibilities? So it is really a debate about the means of proceeding and the way in which to proceed towards obtaining health cover for all the Australian people and the acceptance of what I think both the Government and Opposition see as a goal- the provision of health care.

The Minister for Social Security, Mr Hayden, has persisted in his contention that this government scheme is the best way in which health care can be provided. We challenge that. We regret the fact that Mr Hayden sees fit to criticise those who are opposed to his scheme and to say that there is deliberate deceit and misrepresentation of his scheme. For some time we have been considering the plans which he has had. At no time have we been able to consider the actual cost of his scheme or many of the provisions which need to be considered by people. But it is fair to comment on some things that we do know about his scheme. One of them relates particularly to hospital care, that is, the government subsidy which has been provided for in the government scheme- a subsidy to pay private hospitals $16 per day for each bed used. This has been offered as a means to help citizens to meet the cost of hospitalisation in these institutions. But we have to comment that the $16 per day bed subsidy would cover less than one-third of the hospital cost.

Then we have the difficulty of ascertaining why the amount of $16 has been written into the legislation. Why is it that the Government will not accept a proportion or some amount that can be varied to take into account the variance in cost and in the inflation which we experience? The fact that we see the $16 written into the legislation makes us feel that there will be a tremendous gap between what the Government will give by way of support and what the people will be expected to pay on current costs. The Government has repeatedly said that it does not want to abolish the private hospital system, but we have to say that it gives no undertaking that it will preserve the private hospital system or that it will allow the system to continue with the support that it has had from the voluntary system which is at present in operation.

It is important again to remember that the Bills before us provide for a levy of 1.35 per cent of taxable income. But that 1.35 per cent tax will provide only for standard public ward bed care, if hospital care is the matter which is under consideration, and any extra amount that is required if private hospital care is chosen would be subject to a separate payment and separate insurance would need to be undertaken by the individual. I think it is not hard to see that people in the lower and middle income groups will have no choice as to what type of hospital care they will have in future because a payment of a compulsory levy for the government scheme and an additional private contribution would place the cost of such care beyond their reach. Therefore the removal of private hospital facilities will be very much the experience of those people who are not in the higher income groups. The effect of this, of course, will be that the private hospitals themselves will be in difficulties because there will not be the support for them from the community that they have experienced in the past.

The Government has repeatedly talked about the economics of the health scheme which it has introduced. We have to question whether that is the only measure that should be placed on such a matter of personal care that is needed in our community. We regret that it has been said that the economic factors are important to the extent that has been shown by the Government’s scheme. We would also like to point out that we believe the Government’s scheme will be a very costly one in terms of administration and efficiency. We consider that it is inadvisable to implement this scheme in the present economic climate having regard to the inflationary effect that will undoubtedly occur through the public expenditure involved. It is an economic fact of life that large scale government programs in any service are inflationary and difficult to undertake at the present time. They place added responsibility on us when we are considering the effective use of our resources. The lack of restraint in government spending on public hospitals will help to push upwards medical costs in general. We consider that this is another undesirable feature.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was finalising my remarks on the 3 health Bills which are before the Senate. I had referred to the difficulties of private hospitals. I want now to refer to the difficulties that a free health scheme produces. The difficulties caused by over-use of such a scheme have been recognised in all of the countries where it has been introduced. The experience in Canada with a government sponsored universal and comprehensive system has been that the demand for health services generally exceeded the supply. We believe that this would be inevitable in Australia. The details of the Government’s scheme which have been given to us lead us to believe that the private hospitals would be endangered in their continuity, and undue demands would be placed upon all of the facilities available to us.

I think it fair to summarise the Opposition’s attitude in this chamber as being the same as that expressed by the shadow Minister for Social Security in the other place when dealing with the health levy Bills, namely, that we believe our alternative health scheme would be preferable for the Australian community. In the other place we took the opportunity to have details of that alternative scheme included in the Hansard report of the debate and I do not wish to restate it at the present time. Our scheme is based on voluntary contributions to the private health funds, maintenance of the private hospital system and a further development of cover for the some 8 per cent of people in this community whom we believe have not at this stage arranged their own private health insurance. It is for those reasons that the Opposition in the Senate will continue with the approach we have taken since this scheme was introduced, that is, to reject the Government’s measures. The Opposition Parties will reject the 3 Bills we are considering in the hope that eventually the Government will understand that its scheme is uncosted, inadequate and undesirable for the Australian community.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The debate on the Government’s proposed health scheme has become something of a ‘Blue Hills’ saga. I want only to make two or three points. In the course of this long debate over the Government’s health insurance proposals there have been 2 elections at which they have been put to the people of Australia.

Senator Bonner:

– And rejected.

Senator BUTTON:

– And rejected, says Senator Bonner, which is an obtuse view, if I may so describe it with the maximum of charity and the minimum of offensiveness to him. There have been 2 elections and a joint sitting of the Parliament in relation to this legislation. Even now at this stage, in this chamber, when the Opposition has announced its intention of rejecting this legislation, Senator Guilfoyle is referring to what has become almost a new concept in Australian politics- government by Gallup poll. We were told again today that recent Gallup polls show a larger percentage than last year of the Australian people in favour of the retention of a system of voluntary health insurance. I remind the Senate that in the 2 years over which this debate has proceeded in Australia, the Opposition has had no alternative health policy but consistently maintained opposition to the Government’s proposals. I welcome the fact that in the Hansard report of the debates in the other place there is recorded for the first time what is described as an alternative health scheme. It involves of course the suggestion that those members of the community who are not currently insured- the figure is put at 8 per cent by Senator Guilfoyle- should be brought into what is an existing voluntary health arrangement. I remind the Senate that for a number of years while the Opposition Parties were in Government they failed dismally in any way to bring those people into the voluntary health insurance scheme despite desperate efforts. It is no solution to the problem to say that we can patch up what is essentially a rotten health structure. I said that there was a Joint Sitting and that this legislation had been formerly debated in the Senate. I want to remind the Senate of what Senator Baume, who I understand is to speak next, said in the Senate on the last occasion this legislation was rejected here. I refer to the Hansard of 1 8 July 1 974 in which he said:

We have our right by virtue of election to have our say and to be heard, and it would be quite improper for the Senate to demand that these Bills be put through . . . without new members democratically elected having their say -

He went on to say:

I am willing to accept that there is an inevitable chain of events which may unfold. I was elected by people who support the point of view I adopt, people who believe it is right to oppose this bad legislation. They want this view put and put forcefully.

I interpose that the Opposition has done that. Senator Baume stated further:

I accept the right of the Parliament to hold a Joint Sitting and I will abide by the verdict that it reaches, but we will have our say and will vote as our consciences dictate in the meantime.

All I wanted to do in this debate was to commend Senator Baume for putting in that passage what I regard as a very proper view as to the functioning of Parliament and as to the functioning of this Senate and as to the effects of the Joint Sitting decisions. This Government at 2 elections received a mandate to put forward its health insurance program. Senator Baume adopted the very respectable and proper view that it is the democratic right of an elected government to implement its policies. The Government was elected on a particular program about which every voter in Australia was quite clear- that if the Labor Government was re-elected we would get this health insurance program. Everybody knew that. Senator Baume knew it when he spoke on 1 8 July. As a true individual democrat Senator Baume put forward that point of view in the Senate and I think the whole chamber should be reminded of it. That is what we are really still talking about in this debate here today. There has been no basic change in the Government’s program and no basic change in the Opposition’s program as it was put earlier this year. The only significant change which Senator Guilfoyle can point to is an apparent change in gallup poll appreciation of the voluntary insurance scheme. As I said, I rise briefly to make that comment which is my final contribution to a long saga which looks like ending in some degree of tragedy for the Australian community because of the Opposition’s obstruction of this legislation in this place.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– These 3 Bills, the Health Insurance Levy

Assessment Bill (No. 2), the Health Insurance Levy Bill (No. 2) and the Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill (No. 3) are the 3 Bills necessary to bring into operation what is popularly called the Hayden health scheme. These 3 Bills were not introduced into the Senate until this sessional period of Parliament which began in July. What we are seeing is the end of an exercise in ineptitude by the Labor Government which we have had in office for the last couple of years. The Government controls the entry of business into the Parliament; it controls the preparation of legislation; it controls the preparation of its legislative program. As I go round the community I am asked by my constituents: ‘Why do we not have the Labor health scheme operating now? You had a Joint Sitting’. The answer is quite simple. The Labor Government had not prepared all the legislation necessary to make the health scheme work. When we had the double dissolution we had before the Parliament only some of the legislation which the Labor Party required.

I think in fairness I should point out that when Senator Button referred to what I had said, as recorded in Hansard, it was to something which I said not in the debate on these 3 Bills. I am prepared to be corrected, but I think it was in the debate on the National Health Bill which concerned the whole philosophy of the health scheme. It was the National Health Bill which went to the Joint Sitting and was passed by the Joint Sitting. I was making then no such offer with regard to the Health Insurance Levy Bill which sets out to raise the money to finance what I regard to be a thoroughly bad scheme. But the fact remains that had the Government ordered its business correctly it could have had all the necessary legislative parts of this scheme available at the time of the double dissolution and could have had them all brought before the joint sitting. What we have seen is further ineptitude. The Government has gone to the Joint Sitting without all the pieces it needed to put together this jigsaw of a health scheme.

I will not debate the benefits or otherwise of what the Labor Party proposes in its scheme; we have done that before. Senator Guilfoyle already has reminded us of many of the things which this scheme will do. She has reminded us very correctly that a recent gallup poll showed that more Australians are in favour of voluntary health insurance than was the case previously. We are faced with the prospect of seeing a government which has attacked the advertising industry, among other industries, spending a lot of money in the next few months advertising to try to sell a program which holds less and less support in the community.

Senator Milliner:

– What about the Queensland Government? Did it do anything like that?

Senator BAUME:

– The Queensland Government has just had an election. Senator Milliner probably campaigned for the Labor Party. It was a very successful election for the Labor Party in Queensland too! The only reason why we are considering these Bills relating to health insurance levies is that they were not brought in before and were not available at the time of the Joint Sitting. On this side we have been consistently and completely opposed to the whole idea of the Labor Government’s compulsory health scheme. We have made our stand known at every opportunity. We have made it known that if the Health Insurance Commission were established we would take steps to reverse the scheme and dismantle the Commission if we could. We have made a public statement on that matter. We believe the scheme will be very expensive, and more expensive than the Government has admitted. We believe it will add to inflationary pressures and that it is unwanted by most Australians. We are constant in our opposition to it. Also we are fortified by all the signs of government disintegration which we see around us. In office, as I said, we would disband the Health Insurance Commission. We remain opposed to the Bills and to what they are trying to achieve and take the view that since they are abhorrent they do not deserve passage.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– This Bill is part of subsidiary legislation which has followed the passage of the very hotly contested major legislation which, as other honourable senators have said, was passed by the Joint Sitting. I am as opposed now to the changes which the Government is making as I was when I first became publicly involved in this issue, but events have moved rapidly since the Joint Sitting and we are confronted with a proposal to fund the new scheme by way of contribution. It is obvious that the public is showing perhaps even greater resistance to this scheme than at any previous time during its discussion, and that is a prevailing feeling not only among the medical profession but also among those who staff hospitals and among the general public who believe that medical service and hospitalisation as they now know them would be subject to inefficiency under the Government’s scheme which would downgrade not only the quality of medical service they receive but also raise the cost of it and make it less available to them than is desirable. They will in fact be subject to disciplines to which they are not now subject in the choice of their medical officer.

These things we know and we have argued. That has been the position probably since this Government first came to office and began to promote its new proposals. The issue as to whether or not the Government should proceed over all was settled at the joint sitting which took place earlier this session. We find now that the Opposition intends to defeat this subsidiary legislation. If the Opposition could defeat the implementation of this scheme it would have a very good point, although, as I said at the joint sitting, it would not be justified constitutionally in doing so.

In defeating this Bill, I believe that the Opposition will do the opposite to what it intends to do, and that is to put any obstacle in the way of the Government. It is pretty clear that the Government is intent on proceeding with this scheme and it will not accept any block that is put in its way. What the Government is asking the Senate to pass is a taxation measure which is to provide for individual contributions to the medical health funds. If this Bill is defeated I understand that the Government will proceed to finance this scheme from general revenue. If the Government finances this scheme from general revenue we will have a completely noncontributory medical and health services situation in Australia. The Opposition, by defeating this Bill, will be instituting a free medical and hospital service in this country. That is what the Opposition will do if it defeats this legislation. That is the effect- if we cut through the emotion in which I earlier joined and in which I would like to join now- of what the Opposition is doing. It is taking away the contributory side of the public’s responsibility to its medical and health services, which is the opposite of what the Opposition and I want.

Senator Baume:

– The Government will have to seek an appropriation of money, will it not, sooner or later?

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I should think the Government will have to seek an appropriation of money. I imagine it will be contained in a general revenue Bill. I am doubtful whether it would have to be separate. I am not all-wise yet in the way of the Federal Government but I assume that, with the major legislation passed, it will be contained in general revenue legislation. I assume that it will be placed in such a way that it will mean the defeat of the Government or otherwise. It could well be that by the middle of next year the Opposition would like to accomplish that defeat. It has not said, of course, with any certainty, at this stage that it can.

In contemplating this legislation one must realise that unless the Government is defeated next year we are witnessing the introduction of a free medical and hospitalisation service in Australia. I hope the Opposition understands that it is punting everything on the defeat of the Government before this scheme is operating. Once this scheme is operating ‘free’ to the Australian community it will not be possible to make it contributory. I use the word ‘free’ in inverted commas, of course, knowing full well that the public will pay and pay in large measure through their general taxation revenue. Nevertheless, in all normal terms as we understand them it will be a free service and no alteration the Opposition may make when in government will be able to re-institute charges for the scheme which will have been previously provided free of charge. That is one factorthe largest factor- involved in the legislation that we are faced with today.

As I have said, I share the Opposition’s view that this is indeed a very sad day because we are witnessing a change in this manner. I joined with other honourable senators in voting against this legislation at the joint sitting. Before coming to this place, I vigorously campaigned against the Government’s proposals. But that is not the issue we are discussing today. That argument has gone by. It is as a result of the fact that the Opposition in this place created a double dissolution in May of this year that the Government now has the power that the Opposition so badly did not want it to have. The power was given to the Government by the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party in the Federal Parliament. That is worth remembering and worth repeating when we look at the responsibilities and the factors which now enable the Government to introduce the scheme. It has the power to introduce the scheme because the Opposition gave it the chance to do so and the chance to hold the Joint Sitting, which it would not have had if the double dissolution had not occurred. All of those things are history.’ 1 come to the very real point that was made, I thought well, in yesterday’s ‘Financial Review’. An article headed ‘ Medibank ‘s Painful Birth’ deals with a number of possibilities which will arise from now until the projected take-off date of this scheme, namely, 1 July next year. I shall quote at random from the article. The article states:

Despite declarations or opposition from doctors, health funds and private hospitals, the Government’s national health scheme is set to operate from 1 July next year.

Further on the article states:

On the medical side of the scheme, which accounts for 60 per cent of all private insurance, the Government has considerable immunity from the actions of the scheme’s three major opponents.

And the Government, having found itself in a position of a refusal of supply, could stall an election for a good month after July 1.

It is on the hospital side of the scheme that its opponents could successfully prevent its implementation on a State basis.

The article then goes on to say:

The States, with control over public hospitals, could simply refuse to co-operate or to accept the money for the hospitals scheme. On present indications Government officials expect the two Labor States, and, ironically, Queensland, to accept their offer.

So let us have a practical look at this situation. Of the 3 States which are expected to accept the Government’s offer, two will do so automatically and the other has largely roundly rejected the Labor Party at a recent election. But, because of the type of hospitalisation which that State already provides, it is almost certain to accept this scheme. So, on a State by State basis, numerically half of the States of Australia are predicted to accept the scheme in regard to hospitalisation. The article continues:

Doctors would still have to co-operate with the bureaucracy of the scheme, most importantly billing procedures.

But in the absence of the health funds paying refunds to patients, it would seem most doctors would have little alternative but to co-operate.

A similar predicament faces the health funds which would become obsolete in their present form from the date of the scheme’s introduction, unless they took up the Government’s offer to act as agencies.

The article then mentions the political implications. It states:

It would be extremely difficult both politically and mechanically for a Liberal-Country Party Government to tear the commission down.

That is what Senator Baume said a LiberalCountry Party Government would do. The article goes on to say:

Even if the commission were disbanded, its employees would be permanent public servants entitled to jobs elsewhere in the Government- a point relevant in any attempt to retard the flow of employees to the commission.

The compromise from the Opposition’s viewpoint, which Mr Chipp supports but his Party doesn’t, would be for the funds and the commission to co-exist, in a similar relationship to that of TAA and Ansett in the domestic airlines sector.

The Government has set a December 3 1 deadline for the funds to reply to the agency offer.

The article goes on to say:

Ironically, the Senate’s move expected this week to block the Government’s legislation for the 1.35 per cent levy on taxpayers to fund the scheme, could strengthen Mr Hayden ‘s propaganda position.

He is confident in this event that the scheme could be financed from Consolidated Revenue.

It would simply mean the tax cuts foreshadowed by the Government in next year’s Budget would not be as great.

In propaganda terms, however, Mr Hayden would be able to claim with some accuracy that the scheme is in fact free.

It is in that regard that the Opposition has not fully considered its attitude to this legislation. If the Oppposition is to be effective in its opposition to the legislation it has to contemplate action that Senator Baume has predicted will be taken. It will have to dismantle at some time in the future what the Government has set up. We have already, in reading the article, had a look at the difficulties involved in dismantling the bureaucracy of the scheme- the fact that there would be very many employees who were permanent members of the Public Service. But the fact of the matter is that the most difficult aspect to dismantle would be that related to the fact that the scheme is free. It would be much easier for the Opposition to dismantle a contributory scheme, even though it was financed by means of a percentage levy on income. Such a scheme would be much easier to alter, to change, to dismantle or to replace than something which is free. My prediction is that the Government will see this as one of its major ambitions in office- make no mistake about it. I heard a rather enthusiastic ‘Hear, hear’ from my left. This is what we would expect. The Government has not been reticent about it. I believe the Government will achieve this at all electoral costs.

There is no electoral penalty which will prevent the Government from proceeding, and no gallup polls or threats from any sector of the community will prevent the Australian Labor Party while in office from proceeding with its medical health plans. Therefore it will do everything it can to start this scheme on 1 July, or as close to that date as possible. I do not believe for one minute that the defeat of these Bills will hold up the scheme. As I said, defeat of this legislation would take the proposal further from a contributory scheme, which we on our side of politics maintain that there must be. We of course maintain that there must be a contributory scheme so that it will be obvious to the public who make use of it that there is nothing free in this world, and that an overuse of the scheme, an inefficient demand on the scheme, and an inefficient response to it where there is no relationship to some factor of costs is something which is to be deplored.

Senator Baume:

– The date 1 July implies cooperation and participation of the present health funds.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-While Senator Baume might be right in saying there would be a good deal of obstruction to this scheme he is ignoring the disciplinary powers that the Government has. He is ignoring the fact that the cost of medical and hospital care in Australia is sky-rocketing. There is an enormous increase. One of the great factors working against the. medical profession’s view on this has been the fact that doctors have doggedly and determinedly put up their salaries and fees during the entire discussions on this. I am not commenting at this stage on whether they deserve them or not. What I am saying is that they have not helped the argument from their point of view; they only illustrate the point. Putting aside whether they are right or wrong or whether they helped their side of the question, they have highlighted the great extremes that there are in cost increases in Australia, particularly in medical and hospital care, and whatever scheme we think of in the future will have no relationship to current costs. Senator Guilfoyle mentioned something about a comparison with current costs. Current costs are not really relevant because they are exploding, irrespective of what scheme one is talking about. There has to be some new basis of approach to assistance for and production of hospital and medical support in Australia.

All I can say is that I wish the Opposition would think this through. It might very well be better from the Opposition’s point of view to pass this legislation and at least keep the scheme contributory than to refuse to pass the legislation and thereby make the scheme free. That to me is the essence of what we are voting on. We are not voting on whether we approve of the scheme. I am going to vote for these Bills because I want to keep the scheme contributory, but that does not say that I support the Government’s plans in the slightest. I maintain my opposition in representation about these matters, as I have always done, to what the Government is seeking to do in this matter, but I must regard the Government as having the power since the Joint Sitting. Now it is going about the detail of implementing it.

I say in closing that I think the Opposition has simply not thought this through. What it is seeking to do is to make. medical and hospital care in Australia free similar to the scheme in Britain in a sense which its supporters would regard as the most objectionable of all. I think the Opposition is hastening a scheme which it does not want, certainly one that I do not want and, by interjection I understand, one that Government supporters do not want. In any case I think the Opposition is going to force the pace. I see the defeat of this legislation as automatic and I see the emergence of a free scheme under the pressure which the Opposition has created.

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

-I would like briefly to state my attitude to these Bills. The Government is attempting to impose a levy by way of taxation to fund its health scheme. I repeat my opposition to these Bills. My basic reason for opposing them is that I am confident that at present this country cannot afford the cost of the grandiose health scheme that the Government has in its mind. At a time when the people around the country are saying that there should be a reduction of taxation, what do we find the socialist Government doing? It asks the Parliament to increase taxation further to finance a health scheme to which surveys have shown most people in Australia are opposed. One would think that the Government would learn that the Australian people prefer a gradual change to being forced to change from one system to another, the new one being of the type that all experience, everywhere in the world, has indicated will fail because it will become prohibitively expensive.

Any health scheme should have several aims. It should provide universal access by all people to adequate care. It should offset the individual’s financial burden but I believe that in many cases there should be a slight financial disincentive as it has been shown in other areas of the world that people tend to over use the facilities made available to them and in such a situation the cost of the health scheme becomes disastrously high. Any health scheme supported by a Government should encourage high standards of medical practice. It should allow the doctor to choose his patient and vice versa. Doctors should be able to practice their profession free of coercion. It should be conducive to the most efficient way of using the money we have available in this country. Of course, it should always protect the privacy of patients.

When we are ill what most of us want is to be treated as quickly as possible by the doctor of our choice and at a reasonable cost. That is the real issue that has to be decided when discussing a health scheme. My opposition to the Australian Labor Party’s scheme has not softened as time has gone on. I believe that fewer people than previously are now in favour of the scheme. The professional groups have maintained their opposition to it. The scheme as envisaged will mean the death of the private hospitals. Once the enthusiasm to run private hospitals is lost it will be virtually impossible to get those hospitals going again. It is my opinion that these private hospitals play a very important part in the health care of our community. Why the Government insists on attacking and destroying yet another private sector of the community when it knows the disaster it has created in areas in which it has meddled, I cannot fathom, but that is what it seems to be intent on doing.

It should look hard and long at what has happened in other countries. The Canadian scheme failed. We all know what a mess they are getting into in Britain. We should tend to do the opposite of anything that is done there. Other countries, such as Sweden and New Zealand, have found tremendous difficulties with their health schemes. So I am totally opposed to this health scheme.

Senator Milliner:

– You have not given us one piece of evidence.

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I think it has been shown before that, with the honourable senator’s woolly thinking, if evidence were produced it would not really matter because he would not be able to understand it. I think that this Government would be far better off modifying gradually the scheme that we now have rather than implementing this new scheme. At the moment it should be cutting expenditure. This is one area where it could easily cut back on some unnecessary expenditure. The fact that the Government intends to attempt to proceed with this scheme shows how hollow are its claims to be worried about the economy. If the Government were worried about the economy it certainly would not be going ahead with this scheme and certainly would not be going ahead with it at this time. ‘

The scheme will become a money-munching white elephant. I feel we will all live to regret this kind of scheme if it is ever allowed to become law. I suppose the mad socialists and theoreticians like to support this kind of scheme because it allows them to increase taxation a little more in this already over-taxed country. It allows them to rip a little more money from us. That, of course, is the socialist aim. Once more I say that taxation in this country should be reduced and not increased. There is no way that I will vote to support the increase of 1.3S per cent in taxation to fund this levy. In my opinion this scheme will further damage the economy of this country. It is based upon estimates of costs that have not been fully justified, at least not to my satisfaction. I agree that gradually we should improve or change the present scheme. The important word in that sentence is ‘gradually’. Basically the present scheme is not too bad and with gradual modification it could be adapted in a much less expensive way than the way the Government is attempting.

Senator Button:

– For whom? For you?

Senator TOWNLEY:

– If the honourable senator does not know what I am talking about he obviously does not know much about the scheme. In my opinion the proposed scheme is not in the best interests of Australia. If a referendum were held I am confident that the people would toss it out by quite a large margin. Let it be quite clear that I believe that rejection of these Bills will give the Government basis for a double dissolution. If that be the choice of the Government, then let it be. I will be voting against the Bills.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I also do not wish to delay the Senate for very long. We have had a feeling of deja vu in this place for about the last 3 years every time that health insurance Bills are debated. Senator Guilfoyle stated quite clearly the Opposition’s attitude to these Bills and to the health scheme in general. She gave some outline of the Opposition’s plans. I thought at that stage that these Bills would pass away quietly but then the debate became more fascinating with Senator Baume ‘s rather tortuous logic in attempting to justify his opposition to the machinery Bills. He accepted the fact that there had been 2 elections, that we had won them, that the legislation had been accepted, that a joint sitting took place and that the legislation had been passed. Senator Hall demonstrated quite clearly that he alone on the Opposition benches reads what Mr Hayden and others of us on this side say about health. He is the only person who takes any notice of it.

Last year, before I was a member of this chamber, the proposed scheme came under some criticism because it was a contributory scheme in that the levy on tax to pay for the health scheme was separated from the general taxation. Mr Hayden made it quite clear then that he wanted the levy kept separate because he did not want anyone to be under the false impression that health care would be free. In the recent debate in the House of Representatives, as Senator Hall pointed out, Mr Hayden said quite clearly that if the Opposition persisted in opposing the machinery legislation to carry out our national health insurance scheme we would have to fund it from Consolidated Revenue. This has been pointed out since in newspaper articles. But apparently it was not until Senator Hall came out with his shattering light this afternoon that inspiration suddenly hit the Opposition that this is what would happen and that throwing this Bill out would not necessarily throw out the Government’s health insurance scheme.

Senator Townley has always been opposed to the principle in this Bill, but this is standard procedure for him. I would expect Senator Townley to support those vested interests who look after the large national health benefit funds. I would expect him to support the gentlemen in these health benefit organisations who elect themselves; organisations which have been described in a rather quaint way by Mr Chipp as cooperatives, yet give their members no vote; which give their members no say in how their funds are used; which lend their public relations officers to the Opposition during election time; which distribute propaganda paid for by the contributors to their funds, to be distributed by doctors and others during election time without asking for the contributors ‘ permission.

I would expect Senator Townley to support this group of people, as I would expect him to support groups of people like the General Practitioners Society whose principle of fees is the same as that of the retail traders organisationthat a doctor should charge what the public can bear. I dare say that this is the principle in Senator Townley ‘s shops. This is the principle of that small group of doctors who belong to the General Practitioners Society. To suggest that our scheme does not provide universal access is nonsense. To suggest that it decreases efficiency is nonsense. To suggest that it is an attack on private hospitals is nonsense. But to go on with all the old argument that has been going on since 1968 and 1969 in Australia is crazy.

Senator Townley reflected on those horrible countries like Sweden, New Zealand and Great Britain which have national health schemes. It is an unfortunate fact, of which Senator Townley would not be aware, that if Australia had an infant mortality rate anything like the rate in Sweden, we would be very proud. In fact, if we could reduce our infant mortality rate to the rate applicable in Britain or in New Zealand we would be very happy.

Senator Baume:

– How about our suicide rate like Sweden’s?

Senator GRIMES:

-That is affected by the health scheme, is it? If we could increase our life expectation to that which applies in these countries, it would be very helpful indeed. Ask the people of Sweden or New Zealand or Britain whether they would like their health schemes taken away. Let us remember the words of the President of the New Zealand Medical Association who, when he arrived in Australia, said that he could not understand what the Australian doctors were about, why they were so utterly conservative, why they were so frightened of a universal health scheme. I ask honourable senators to read the letter from the President of the Canadian Medical Association who was most incensed at being misquoted by the General Practitioners Society in Australia which suggested that the Canadian Medical Association did not like Canada’s health scheme. Honourable senators opposite are reading the articles of the General Practitioners Society, but what is more, they are in the unfortunate situation of believing what is in the articles.

Senator Townley:

– How many doctors do they have to get to keep the English scheme going?

Senator GRIMES:

-The English health scheme is not the same as the proposed Australian health scheme. Senator Baume knows it, every doctor in Australia knows it, but Senator Townley, who is not a doctor, does not know it.

Senator Baume:

– What about Queensland?

Senator GRIMES:

– The proposed Australian health scheme is the same as the Queensland scheme on the hospital side. I do not see Queensland senators getting up in this chamber and opposing the Queensland health scheme at the present time or at any time. Ask Mr BjelkePetersen whether he is suddenly going to start charging in the Queensland hospitals. I am in a different position from Senator Baume. I do not believe that the paying of a fee makes any difference to the standard of service given by the doctor. I have a higher regard for my colleagues in the community than apparently Senator Baume has.

Senator Baume:

– I was just correcting a misstatement.

Senator GRIMES:

– There was no misstatement at all. We know what the English hospital scheme is. We know what the Queensland hospital scheme is. We know that there are private hospitals in Queensland. We know that the health standard in Queensland is almost as good as it is in most other places in Australia. The opposition to this scheme, as it has always been, is to protect the vested interests which control the voluntary health insurance schemes. Senator Townley opposed this legislation when he was an Independent. He is still opposing it now that he has rejoined the fold opposite. He was pretending to be an Independent but his robes were so transparent that he was left looking quite obscene.

Senator Townley:

– If the Government brings in good legislation I will support it any time.

Senator GRIMES:

– The honourable senator has never supported anything from this side of the chamber. I am sorry the Opposition is opposing the legislation because this is a good health scheme. It could have been modified if any difficulties came up. I would prefer that the scheme be funded by a levy so that it was obvious to everyone how much they were paying for it. This country needs a universal health scheme. If the Opposition forces the Government to fund it out of Consolidated Revenue I suggest that we will do that in order to provide the people of this country with the health scheme they deserve.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– in reply- As has been said during the course of the debate, this legislation has been debated in the Parliament for quite some time. It is quite apparent that the members of the Liberal and Australian Country Parties have no intention of supporting the Government’s legislation. Without dragging out the points any more than is necessary, three or four comments were made to which I feel I should reply. To close my remarks I shall restate the advantages of this system which the Government has been trying to introduce for the past few months. Senator Guilfoyle, who led for the Opposition, talked of the higher taxes people would have to pay to finance the Government’s health scheme. On this very point the Minister for Social Security, Mr Hayden, in answer to a question in the House of Representatives not so long ago, pointed out that people would not be required to pay higher taxes.

People now pay contributions to private health insurance organisations. That in itself is a tax. It is quite wrong to talk about a voluntary tax. If a person wants to cover himself for health insurance purposes he has no choice other than to pay. What is important is that under the Government’s proposed scheme one will pay according to one’s ability to pay. Under the present scheme the higher one’s income, the less one pays after one claims a tax deduction. The more one has need of subsidisation from public support programs, the less one gets under the present scheme. These are the types of anomalies which the Government would try to remove under the proposed medical scheme. Senator Guilfoyle also talked of the administrative costs of the Government’s scheme. Actually, the Government’s scheme will be more efficient than the present one. The levy will be collected along with income tax by the Taxation Office. In the case of employees it will be deducted from their pay along with income tax instalments and be remitted to the Taxation Office. I ask honourable senators to compare this scheme with the present scheme under which large numbers are required to attend and make their payments at the funds’ offices or at the agents’ offices. It is apparent that the proposed system would be a more streamlined system of collection. Some comments were made about the cost to the individual. During the past 4 years, contributions to hospital and medical benefits funds under the present scheme have approximately doubled. All indications are that they will continue to rise. The medical profession has announced large increases. At present an inquiry is being held to determine medical fees for benefit purposes. Hospital costs continue to rise and, if the present scheme continues, public hospital fees must be expected to increase. Contribution levels under the present scheme must be approaching- if they have not already reached- levels where many people will experience real difficulty in maintaining health insurance under the present inequitable contribution arrangements. The collection of individual contributions through the proposed levy on taxable incomes will mean that payment of the contributions will be directly related to ability to pay. This will ensure that no members of the population are unable to avail themselves of medical or hospital treatment because of inability to pay for the treatment.

Before I restate the Government’s position on the whole medical scheme I want to touch briefly on the point raised by Senator Hall. I do not think there is great validity in it. Naturally, in the light of the obstruction in the Senate, the Government will have to reconsider the position. I am unable to state precisely what the Minister for Social Security would do, but I have no doubt that in the light of the rejection of this legislation he will be compelled to give further consideration to what the Government will do in pursuance of the financing of the scheme. Let me state briefly what the Medibank program will mean for individual citizens. I make it quite clear that these are the essential points of the national health scheme that this Government has been endeavouring to implement to protect all the citizens of this country. For individual citizens, the program will mean automatic health insurance coverage based on a more equitable system of payment, freedom of choice of doctor and the type of hospital care. Patients will be perfectly free, just as they are at present, to choose their own family doctor. They will also be able to be referred to any specialist in private practice. In fact, there will be an extension of freedom of choice of doctors in that in public hospitals patients, regardless of means, will be able to elect to be treated by a salaried doctor. Individual citizens will be able to receive free standard bed hospital treatment without means test. They will also be able to insure with private health funds against charges raised by public hospitals for intermediate and private ward care and for treatment in private hospitals.

For existing pensioner medical service pensioners, the program will mean access to the full range of medical and hospital services on the same basis as all other members of the community. For privately practising doctors it will mean that the existing system of medical care and the doctor-patient relationship will be maintained. Doctors will continue to charge a fee for each service provided and will have a choice in the way they are remunerated through the health insurance system.

For State governments the program will mean a considerable increase in the funds provided by the Australian Government for hospital services under agreements to be negotiated. These agreements will specify that the Australian Government will provide up to 50 per cent of the net operating costs of public hospitals. For private hospitals it will mean an increase in the daily bed subsidy from $2 to $ 16 and a guarantee of managerial autonomy. For religious, charitable and community hospitals volunteering to provide free standard ward treatment the program will mean the payment of a supplementary daily bed payment on top of the basic $ 1 6 a day subsidy.

For the community generally the program will mean a more efficient system of health care financing and, in addition, assistance by way of health program grants for approved organisations providing particular types of health services which are not otherwise covered under health insurance arrangements. I believe that it is a great tragedy for the Australian people that this legislation is to be rejected. Such rejection thwarts the Government in its stated aim to introduce a health scheme of this nature, one which has been stated clearly by the Government in 1972 and again in 1974. It is true that there are sectional interests within the medical profession in Australia which have used every possible means available to them to prevent the introduction of this legislation. As has been pointed out earlier in the debate, which countries would now opt out of a national health scheme? Would the Swedish people say that they no longer want such a scheme? Would the New Zealanders say this? Of course it is necessary to bring in a system which is efficient and which is equitable and which provides for the necessary things that we need in our health and medical services. This effort is being thwarted today by this Senate. It is being opposed by the Liberal Party and Country Party senators in this chamber, and history will prove that one way or the other the Australian people will eventually get the sort of national health services that they deserve and that they want.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President- Senator J. J. Webster)

AYES: 26

NOES: 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 3386

HEALTH INSURANCE LEVY BILL 1974

[No. 2]

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 December, on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question put:

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President- Senator J. J. Webster)

AYES: 26

NOES: 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative

page 3387

INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1974 [No. 3]

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 10 December, or motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question put: .

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President- Senator J. J. Webster)

AYES: 26

NOES: 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 3387

STATES GRANTS (SOIL CONSERVATION) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 December on motion by Senator Wheeldon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

-The States Grants (Soil Conservation) Bill is an interim measure to provide for 2 interim programs. One is to be financed by a grant to the State of $500,000 for the year 1974-75, the other by a grant to the State of $2.5m for the year 1975-76. These grants are to be made conditional on the States concerned agreeing to collaborate in a joint nation-wide study in land management. If the States do not agree to that participation, they do not get the money. I will come back to that point in a moment.

The origin of the Bill itself is that in February 1971 the Australian Agricultural Council received a report, a copy of which Ihave in my hand, from the Standing Committee on Soil Conservation. The report, which consists of some 111 pages is called: ‘Study of Community Benefits of, and Finance for Soil Conservation’. I commend it to honourable senators. My remarks will be mercifully brief because of the pressure of business of the Senate. This standing committee, consisting of chief officers of each State who are concerned with soil erosion, plus representatives from the then Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry and the Commonwealth Department of the Interior, was formed in 1946. It has done very good and continuous work.

I want to place on record some of the important matters that are contained in the report of the Committee. It said that the non-arid regions of Australia- about 230,000 square miles or 30 per cent- are affected to some degree by soil erosion. Of this 30 per cent about 10 per cent is affected by major soil erosion and 20 per cent by minor soil erosion. It went on to say that, at the present rate of progress of rehabilitation work against soil erosion, it would take 100 years to complete the program. The report recommends that the program be completed in 30 years. It went on to say that at 1 970 prices the overall cost would be some $350m or a sum of about $ 12m a year. My calculation is that at present prices it would cost some $530m or about $18m a year. The report makes the vital point that one should not simply be looking towards rehabilitation of existing erosion, whether it is caused by wind, water, gullying, over grazing, over cropping, burning, the loss of humus or the denuding of trees. It says that what we need for Australia is to develop nationwide systems of land use that will be prophylactic in their sense of soil conservation. I believe that this is of enormous importance. The report of the Committee was received by the Agricultural Council and referred to an interdepartmental committee, which brought it ultimately to the Government.

It is said that the New South Wales Government has not as yet agreed to join in the cooperation on the overall study. The New South Wales Government has been a pioneer in Australia and indeed in the world in soil conservation. One can only think, for example, of the name of E. S. Clayton as one of the great pioneers in this regard. Not only has the New South Wales Government been a pioneer from well into the 1 930s -so has South Australia- but also it has set aside in its budget large sums of money. For example, in 1972-73 it provided $6. 17m, in 1973-74 $6.8m, in 1974-75 $7.4m, in 1975-76 $8.5m, and in 1976-77 $9.3m. It has a well developed and a progressive system of soil conservation and of course, as are all the other States, it is concerned that there might be a duplication of work from the Commonwealth, or that there might be a pressure or a directionalism from the Commonwealth when they are already doing a good job. The New South Wales Government, I think quite rightly, asks why, if in 1974-75 it spends $7.4m, it should have to spell out the whole of the history of what it is doing in order to get $1 10,000, which would be its share of the grant from the Federal Government. I think it is unreasonable. I make one other comment and that is that the State of South Australia, which has done much in soil conservation, has something to growl aboutsomething to complain about- in this legislation. With 9.3 per cent of the population of Australia, South Australia is to receive by way of interim grant in the first year 5 per cent and in the second year 4.4 per cent of the total interim grants. I believe this in itself is a cause for criticism.

I conclude on this basis: Had we time, the Senate might well have debated this Bill in some depth. Civilisation and the survival of man in this world depends on some 9 inches of topsoil and the tilth or quality of the humus of that topsoil. If man is to survive- to overcome hunger- and if Australia is to carry on its job of not only feeding its people but also feeding the world, then it is part of its sacred trust that it should carry out prophylactic soil conservation and land management and use to the fullest degree possible. I therefore commend the Bill.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– in reply- I do not want to prolong this debate. I am pleased that the Opposition supports the Bill. As Senator Carrick has said, it is an important Bill. The matter of soil conservation is of tremendous importance to Australia, which is still primarily an agricultural and pastoral country, and the purposes of the Bill are to see that we preserve this great natural asset of the Australian people. I welcome the support of the Opposition and trust that the Bill will have a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3388

NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 December, on motion by Senator Wheeldon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

- Mr Acting Deputy President, may I suggest that we take as a cognate debate the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill 1974 and the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Bill 1974?

Senator Wheeldon:

– I have discussed this matter with Senator Carrick and the Government is in favour of these 2 Bills being taken cognately.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT:
Senator Marriott

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

Senator CARRICK:

– May I say at the outset that the subject matter inherent in these 2 Bills, that is the need to conserve and protect the flora and fauna and to maintain the balance or the interaction between flora and fauna, including interaction with man, is, of course, one of the most profoundly important challenges to man today. I say this in the knowledge that one of the most gratifying things in recent years has been that not only the scientists and the politicians, but also as pace setters for the rest of the world, the people of Australia have come to demand that everything possible be done to preserve the ecosystem. In that the Federal Opposition fully concurs. Indeed, governments of Liberal and Country Party faith at the State level throughout Australia have set a very significant and forward pace in such legislation.

If I do not dwell upon the philosophy inherent in these measures it is not because it is not important; it is purely because of the legislative program before the Senate. I shall deal essentially, with’ some preliminary comments, with those points which may be of some difference and which may need some clarification. Firstly I will dispose of the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Bill. This Bill owes its origin to two streams of action- to the House of Representatives Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation, a committee which was set up during the lifetime of the former Liberal-Country Party Government, and to the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate, a committee which was set up by the present Government. Each of those committees in its several ways made recommendations. The House of Representatives Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation recommended that grants be provided to the States to enable them to acquire areas of wildlife habitat which are of natural significance. The Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate recommended that grants be made to ensure that adequate funds are available for the acquisition of land for national parks. This Bill therefore provides for $9m to be made available in this year’s Budget as part of a 3-year program for the expenditure of $20m on the acquisition of land for national parks and nature reserves. The Opposition fully concurs with that measure and will give it a very speedy passage.

The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill is a very significant piece of legislation. In introducing this Bill on behalf of the Government the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) said:

The Bill proposes the establishment of a professional service to enable the Australian Government, for the first time, to bring a co-ordinated approach to the management of nature conservation resources in the areas under its direct control.

I emphasise that if in its powers and provisions the Bill were to do those things it would have the emphatic support of the Opposition. But there may be points of disputation in that respect. I wish to acknowledge, if I may, the co-operation given in the other place by the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, Dr Cass, to my colleague Mr Hunt and in this place by the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation in an attempt to remove the areas of disputation in the Bill. I believe that in the general thesis, the general philosophy, of this measure there should be and there is a substantial degree of bipartisanship and that there ought to be in this Commonwealth Parliament a dedication to the purpose of the Bill. That being so, the areas of disputation really arise as to whether the Bill in itself seeks to do those things or to do more than those things. At the outset I indicate that I propose to move ah amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. I move:

I have raised this matter because of the considerable volume of protest- protest which in my view is justified- which has come from the Northern Territory. Over the years the Northern Territory has had the Northern Territory Reserves Board, which has some 37 reserves under its control. It has been acknowledged by all sides as being highly efficient and highly able. There is no mention of it in this measure. In the interim the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory has been set up. lt ought to have some authority to provide some help and to play some advisory role in the planning of the whole of this function in the Northern Territory. There is no mention of its role.

During a period of some 18 months in which the Bill was in preparation the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Northern Territory which was examining the constitution of the Territory said that there should be an official sharing of the remaining functions in the Territory. The Committee felt that the sharing should include urban affairs, roads, ports, fisheries, wildlife and national parks. Therefore, with the existence of the Northern Territory Reserves Board, with the existence of the new Legislative Assembly and with the report of the Joint Committee, one feels that there is utter justice in the complaints that come in very strong terms, particularly from Dr Goff Letts, the majority leader in the Assembly, saying: ‘Why are we not consulted, why are we not being taken into partnership and why do you not delay this measure until you have consulted with us?’

The Federal Opposition believes emphatically that the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly has justice on its side in this complaint. It urges the Government at this late hour to consult with the Assembly. However, the Opposition does not wish that the Bill be held up in so doing. But it so happens that due entirely to the Government’s own scheduling of this and other conservation Bills, the Bill will not become law until February or March. This I stress, has not resulted from any resistance by the Opposition. It is purely because of the scheduling and may be due to mechanical reasons of the Government. It happens that the Government has some 3 months before this Bill can become law. Therefore there is no justifiable reason why it should not consult with the Assembly, with the Reserves Board and with the other ecological bodies in the Northern Territory. I invite the Minister to bring to the attention of the Minister in the other place the fact that there is time available in which these consultations can take place.

Inevitably this Bill will raise a series of challenges as to its true purposes. One of its main challenges is that it seeks to derive powers from a series of alleged heads of power. Mr Ellicott, my colleague in another place, in what I thought was an elegant expression, said that clause 6 is an expression of determination and a confession of uncertainty. That in itself has some elegance because as the Minister acknowledges with a smile clause 6 is one which seeks to establish heads of power. There is a certain audacity about this, a certain almost buccaneering audacity which seeks in a fascinating way for the first time to establish a head df power which is not written in the Constitution but which is as it were, the infusion of the whole Commonwealth Constitution. Clause 6 seeks it, using its words, having regard to its status as a national government. I should think that would keep many silks and many High Court judges busy for many years. It seeks power over territories and clearly it has that power. It seeks power over coastal areas and no doubt the High Court will have a lot to say about that. It seeks power within the States in particular ways and it seeks power from its external powers relating to foreign treaties. Therefore it looks to such powers as those over trade and commerce, and tourism and, of course, to its external powers. Iri the Committee stage I will refer to the problem of relying on external treaties because this in itself is debatable. The Opposition will have something to say in that regard.

The Minister for Environment and Conservation in another place has said repeatedly that it is not the intention of the Commonwealth Government to seek to override or to supplant the States in their role in connection with national parks, wildlife and nature conservation. I should add that one would hope it would not do so. The simple fact is that it has been the States which have been the pace setters in this field. My own State of New South Wales in particular is a world leader. I think it is fair to acknowledge the work of Tom Lewis, the present Minister for Lands and Premier-elect, in this role which is acknowledged world wide. It is important that I say, although it is not the final goal, that the city of Sydney, if taken to have a radius of 72 miles, has 18 per cent of its land as parkland. I think that is without compare world wide. It is not enough, certainly, and we should press for more green belt areas, the lungs of a city. They are vital. How good it is that this situation exists in Sydney. How good it is that in the space of some 9 years in my State of New South Wales the areas of natural parks have substantially more than doubled: They have increased far more than that because some 2 million acres that were in existence before the Askin Government came to office were taken up almost entirely by the Kosciusko National Park. The additional 2 million acres or more are new. and quite exciting parks.

It is important to recognise that the Commonwealth is not coming in as a pace setter. Hopefully the Commonwealth is coming into the field to look at its role in the Territories, as well as other roles, but if it is keen on co-operation, as it says it is, it will have to co-operate with the States. The Minister said that the National Parks and Wildlife Service also will facilitate cooperation with the States in the nature conservation effort and the meeting of Australia’s obligations under the increasing number of international agreements. The Minister emphasised that this will be done by co-operation and presumably, therefore, by the States doing the job because they are equipped to do it. There are. many other statements by the Minister recorded in Hansard signifying this aspect.

In the course of the Committee debate the Opposition will be moving a substantial amendment to ensure that land shall not be acquired by the Commonwealth Government, if the land is dedicated or reserved under a law of a State, without the consent of the State, for purposes related to nature conservation, and so on. I think this will be a real test of the bona fides of the Commonwealth as to its co-operation. The Minister, Dr Cass, has been quite emphatic and I accept his sincerity in that regard. The Bill has to take into account that there is the likelihood of applications for mining in such wildernesses, reserves and national parks. The Government has done something in this respect that I think the Opposition would approve. It has said that there must be a plan of management in this regard and that the plan must be approved by both Houses of the Parliament. One would not want it otherwise. It is a moot point whether mining should be carried out on national parks or wildernesses. Therefore the test in the end should be that such things should come back here. The Opposition will be moving some amendments to ensure that nothing in this Bill makes it simply an instrument of mining for the Petroleum and Minerals Authority acting as a socialist instrument of Government. The Opposition believes that the Bill as it now stands could be taken to provide a monopoly for the Petroleum and Minerals Authority and for the Minister for Minerals and Energy. We will move appropriate amendments in this regard.

Equally, we have some worries about the extent to which this Bill seeks to extend itself, since it appears to take upon itself the creation of national parks upon the high seas. It is well for this Senate to remind itself that there is an international convention called the High Seas Convention. I shall read to the Senate Article 2 of that High Seas Convention. It states:

The high seas being open to all nations, no State may validly purport to subject any part of them to its sovereignty. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by these articles and by the other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and non-coastal States:

1 ) Freedom of navigation;

2 ) Freedom of fishing;

3 ) Freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines;

4 ) Freedom to fly over the high seas.

Senator Georges:

– That is not quite relevant. You are going well beyond the Bill.

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator Georges has interjected that that is not quite relevant. The lawyers both inside and outside this Parliament say that this Bill does seek to go beyond territorial waters onto the high seas. If it does not, it is very simple and the Bill should restrict itself. But the constitutional lawyers say this emphatically and there has been strong argument mounted that there is a case to argue that the Bill would infringe the Convention on the High Seas.

Senator Georges:

– Let us test it then.

Senator CARRICK:

– It is suggested that we should test it. This is not the way to bring down a Bill. One does not make a pot to boil one’s potatoes by first putting a lot of holes into it like a colander and then saying: ‘Let us see if it leaks’. This seems to me absolute nonsense. One should make it as leak proof as possible in the first place to boil one’s potatoes and not have it like a colander..

Senator Georges:

– That has already been done.

Senator CARRICK:

– One bows to Senator Georges’ knowledge of constitutional law. It is fair to say that all over Australia the lawyers, academic and political, are arguing today as to the extent of the powers of this Bill. I do not hold up, and I hope Senator Georges will not, the debate on the second reading of this Bill. It is not of our choosing that there is delay on this second reading. The delay on this second reading is caused by the scheduling of this Government in bringing the Bill into this House at this time. This Bill is of such profound importance that it should have been brought in to the Senate some weeks ago and this Senate should have to have some days to consider it. I acknowledge the fact that every honourable senator shares as fervently as I do views and philosophies on this matter. If indeed Senator Georges wishes to argue a constitutional point now, I have no doubt that he equally fundamantally has his views.

When we get to the Committee stages I shall talk about international treaties. The Bill seeks by regulation to put into effect international treaties. This is of very considerable importance. It would mean that the first thing people would know of an international treaty, it having been signed, would be that a series of regulations would be made. The Government was good enough to provide me with copies of 5 conventions presently in existence, the names of which I shall have recorded in Hansard in due course. The leading one on that list is the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. The powers under it cover virtually anything and honourable senators should bear in mind that the Bill seeks the power to make regulations under this Treaty and some 4 others. Although I will not read it all, Article 2 says:

For the purposes of this Convention the following shall be considered as cultural heritage:

Monuments, architectural works, works of monumental scuplture and paintings, elements of structures of archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features which are of outstanding universal value, groups of buildings, groups of separate or connected buildings which because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape are of outstanding universal value. from the point of view of history, art or science -

May I concentrate on this next item - works of man or the combined works of nature and of man.

I pause here simply to say that solemnly this Bill seeks to give permission to a government to make regulations under this Treaty which has never been before this Parliament, which has never been ratified by this Parliament and which has never been embodied in legislation. The Minister himself would admit that it is slightly too broad a term of reference to be able to make regulations concerning the works of man or the combined works of nature and of man. I read the Article merely to emphasise to the Senate that if we are talking of colanders, here is a treaty, one of some 5, which would virtually allow a government by the device of an international treaty to do anything.

The Opposition does not want in any way to white-ant the substantial nature of this Bill. I have pointed out to the Minister that there must be ways of remedying it. For example, we as a Parliament ought to be looking towards methods not merely of signing a treaty, but of ratifying a treaty, giving to it the force of law, and from that body of law regulations to implement what happens. That would be the proper purpose of Parliament. But to have a treaty which may be signed, as it is, and which only 4 nations out of some 100 have gone along with, and then to say that we will make regulations is stretching the powers of government and government by regulation too far.

Senator Georges:

– Do you agree or disagree with the Convention?

Senator CARRICK:

-I am asked whether I agree with the Convention. I would say that, like Senator Georges, I had not read or studied this Convention until today when I was given a copy of it by courtesy of the Minister and since he acknowledges by his silence that he has not seen or read it he has answered my question. The fact that we are sitting here considering this Bill when not one honourable senator in the Senate today has either seen or read this Convention is proof of the lunacy of trying to carry a law which enables a government to act under regulation. I am grateful to Senator Georges for his inadvertent and charming help on this question.

Senator Georges:

– You have read it but do you accept the Convention?

Senator CARRICK:

– In no sense do I accept that Senator Georges is trying to be vexatious. He is trying to be helpful. I have briefly scanned the Convention and, for myself, it would take some hours really to understand it. Till now no honourable senator in this Senate has seen it and, therefore, quite clearly one would not write into this Bill, the existing Act or the measure foreshadowed anything which would limit the regulation making power to treaties now in existence because this is a treaty now in existence.

I want to pull together the Opposition’s approach. We will move from the second reading stage, I hope quickly, to the Committee stage, firstly because we accept the broad principles of conservation and of wildlife and wilderness preservation and, secondly, because the area of disputation can be narrowed. The real question we are asking is: Is the Government sincere in saying that it does not want to take over, forcibly or otherwise, from the States that it does not want to duplicate what the States are doing? What is the Government’s view in terms of mining? What is its view in terms of these regulations?

The Opposition intends to move a series of amendments which seek to restrict powers that the Government seeks to take to itself by way of trade and commerce within the States. Quite clearly, the Commonwealth Constitution does not give the Commonwealth power over trade and commerce within the States. It gives it external powers over exports. It gives it a section 92 supervision. The Constitution gives the Government customs power over exports and imports but it does not give it trade and commerce powers. The power to regulate wildlife, flora and fauna, within a State is the sovereign power of the State. We can test this- indeed the Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass) has said in another place that he recognises this- by introducing a motion which incorporates the wording that the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) has used in another device. We will give the Senate the opportunity to accept or reject such a motion.

The States themselves are, I think, naturally suspicious but they are worried about duplication. The States believe it would be crazy if, in the States, another authority were established to set up other national parks, other wildlife preserves and other sanctuaries. The States are doing a first-class job now. If the only limitation upon the States is funds then the Commonwealth Government by co-operative federalism could simply work with the States to extend the functions of these services and of this Bill throughout the States. The Commonwealth then could range far and wide within its own territories. In the belief that to discharge its international treaty obligations it has some sort of section 92 over-fly of the States, the Commonwealth is asserting powers. For example, there is a treaty with Japan concerning migratory birds. One would recognise the need for the governments and people of Australia to preserve migratory birds. The test for this Government is: Shall it do this by cooperative federalism, by drawing the attention of the States to the need and having the States carrying them out or are they going to try to set up a unifying system?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marriott)- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired. Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Guilfoyle:

– I second the amendment.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I am delighted to see this legislation come to fruition. I can well recall that in my first speech in this Senate in August 1965 I leaned heavily on the views of the then late Professor Jock Marshall and also Vincent Serventy. Together with the senior adviser of the Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass), Dr McMichael, who in a State capacity, accepted, as do all major Parties now, the responsibility that the Australian Government has in this particular field, together with the redoubtable New South Wales conservationist Milo Dunphy.

I shall deal, in particular, with the remarks of Senator Carrick. He referred to the State of New South Wales. One of the problems of which we have always been aware is how to rationalise the desire for wildlife conservation with the needs of mining. I think a very famous New South Wales Premier and later Governor-General, Sir William McKell, proved in his role in the creation of the Kosciusko State Park- despite the Snowy Mountain project HVDR with its construction aspects- that we were able to get the best of 2 worlds. I know that that is what is in the mind of the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, Dr Cass.

I notice that in another place the Honourable Ralph Hunt seemed to be somewhat unduly solicitous of the feelings of the mining companies. Obviously the role of Dr Cass and the role of the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service will be largely concentrated in Australian territory, which in the main will be the Northern Territory. Even before the House of Representatives Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation was formed, it was often difficult to get the States to work in tandem with one another, much less with the Commonwealth Government. I say that because in about 1966-1 pay tribute to the response that Senator Devitt and I got from the then Minister for Shipping and Transport, the Honourable Ian Sinclair, and the Tasmanian Premier, Mr Reece- we were able to update and give to 2 Bass Strait Island fauna reserves- I refer to the Chapell Islands and Goose Islandthe protection that was needed. This action was to save the then almost extinct Cape Barren Island geese. The moral of that story is that things can be achieved by co-operation between the Federal Government and the State governments.

Since the remainder of my address will be confined to the Northern Territory I will be seeking leave to have incorporated in Hansard a report that Representative Lamb and I prepared. The report deals with the vexed question of the jurisdiction of the Minister for the Environment and Conservation as distinct from that of the Minister for the Northern Territory. I seek to have this 5-page document incorporated in Hansard for this reason: Even when this legislation becomes law- I think Senator Carrick and others will agree- the conservation groups will be referring back to what we have said in the debate. If one studies the works of Stewart Udall, who was an extremely distinguished United States Secretary of the Interior- he had a much bigger area of power than our fragmented system in Australia allows- one will see that there are some questions to be answered. They are dealt with in this report prepared by Representative Lamb and me 12 months ago. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard this 5-page document and a letter from Dr Patterson which outlines the progress of the Top End National Park.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marriott)- The Chair has not seen the documents but, under the normal conditions, if there is no objection leave will be granted. Is there any objection? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The documents read as follows)-

Report by Senator Mulvihill

Northern Territory National Parks/ Wildlife Reservations Policy

Following a decision of the FPLP in late 1973 to examine Northern Territory land usage with particular emphasis on national park and wildlife reservation expansion I visited the Territory with Representatives Lamb and Bryant from 14 to 19 January. Through the use of air and motor transport the delegation was able to examine various sectors of the Territory.

Visitations ranged as far apart as Cobourg Peninsula in the top end to Simpsons Gap in the centre.

Discussions were held with officers of the Northern Territory Reserves Board, Department of the Northern Territory (Darwin) and the Jebiru Ranger Uranium Mining Company.

Three major issues emerged:

The size of the Kakadu National Park and attendant problems;

The prospects of positive responses by the Australian Government to a supplementary list of suitable areas for acquisition as national parks/wildlife reservations submitted by the Northern Territory Reserves Board (vide Appendix A);

The rationalisation of the Conservation Ministers, National Parks Wildlife Commission/National Parks Wildlife Field Service concept with the dual Northern Territory Reserves Board/Department of the Northern Territory Wildlife Service.

Kakadu National Park

Generally both the senior officers of the Department of the Northern Territory and Northern Territory Legislative Councillors appear inbured with a firm desire to finalise all legislative requirements associated with the project this year. Some of the points of conflict are elaborated in reference (c).

Outside this ambit the Committee were pleased with Departmental initiative that could result in an additional 20,000 acres of pastoral leases being added to the national park acreage. Committee members closely questioned officials of the Jabiru Ranger Uranium Mines on anti-pollution measures. In essence the defence of the mining company appeared to be that applied anti-pollution measures would be much higher than the ill-fated Rum Jungle techniques. They contend that a large holding dam of compressed earth will meet all weather conditions and that high evaporation would tend to keep water levels in check.

It was also claimed that the Magela Creek System to which in extreme cases mine water waste might enter was not a continuous link across the plain to the major rivers. Nevertheless several questions on the holding pond and the size of the actual mine shaft by my colleague Representative Lamb did indicate that more positive details were needed on monitoring methods in the Magela Creek and that the Department of the Northern Territory must have ready access to such readings which must be taken frequently. In any case even if the Magela Creek System does provide a buffer area to combat possible water pollution it is doubtful if the Noranda project can claim the same defences. It is quite apparent that your Committee will need detailed consultation with the Minister for the Northern Territory on the acute dangers that exist in polluting the Alligator River System. The concern of your Committee in this direction is well and truly vindicated in the following extract taken from the recently released Alligator River Study Part 6 (IV. Drainage Tracts) 6- 10:

Seasonal changes in water quality

The quality of water and the sediments carried by it are determined by the source of the water. If it has percolated through rock masses before emerging as springs it is likely to be harder and depending on what rock it has infiltrated it may be relatively high in heavy metals and in radioactivity.

If it has entered the stream as direct run-off from the land surface it is more likely to be soft, low in heavy metals and low in radioactivity, unless it has passed directly over a radioactive deposit.

In the wet season the waters of most streams are soft, slightly acid and poorly buffered, low in heavy metals, and low in radioactivity.

When stream flows decrease after the wet season, the local contributions from springs and seepages become proportionately greater and their influence on the chemical constituents and radioactivity of the water may be considerable.

Heavy metal and radioactive elements are carried downstream either in solution or absorbed on suspended solids. The fate of these, and the manner and extent to which man and other biota in the environment may be subjected to them are important matters on which some information has been sought. This information will assist in predicting the fate of any waste materials which may be added to the drainage system, and in estimating how much material could be added without serious damage to man or other biota.’

The Committee gained the impression from discussions with the mine operators that the Bureau of Mineral Resources can play a vital role in determining areas in which mineral exploration can be intensified.

In view of the recent N.S.W. Coolong limestone deposit dispute it is thought desirable that the Bureau of Mineral Resources might seek to encourage uranium exploration in more arid regions of the Territory where conservation conflicts would be at a minimum.

In setting conditions for mining operations it is essential to remember that the mining companies benefit greatly from knowing the exact conditions under which they can operate. In setting effective anti-pollution safeguards not only is the environment protected but mining companies immediately know the standards which they must maintain and will know if and when they can operate so removing speculation from their activities. It is essential that mining companies can move in a predictable environment in which to make decisions and that governments do not leave them (up in the air) as to their rights and obligations.

page 3394

RECOMMENDATIONS

Additional Land Acquisitions Sought by the Northern Territory Reserves Board

A perusal of Appendix A shows a wide variety of regions which could immeasurably strengthen the Northern Territory parklands system. Notwithstanding the magnitude of the Kakadu project these supplementary plans deserve early consideration.

In the face of continuous pastoral and mining demands 1 974 should be the year when an overall evaluation is made on all Northern Territory land usage and the Appendix A list should be given immediate attention. With the principle accepted in the 1973 Budget of Conservation Minister Cass having funds available for disbursement for the procurement of additional land for conservation purposes one of the early recipients should be the Northern Territory Reserves Board or the new authority which may supersede it.

page 3394

RECOMMENDATION

The Minister for the Northern Territory be requested to submit an early list of the areas that can be added to the acreages controlled by the Northern Territory Reserves Board. Pending any such action listed areas be freezed from usage for mining or pastoral purposes.

page 3394

INTEGRATION OF AUSTRALIAN AND TERRITORIAN PARK AUTHORITIES

Undoubtedly the dismantlement of the existing Department of the Interior has created problems in regard to National Parks/Wildlife Services and Australian Government initiatives.

Many party members had noted the effective policy in this sphere pursued by the U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Stuart Udal in the sixties and visualised similar successes in Australia. The subsequent creation of the separate portfolios of the Northern Territory and Conservation has made the realisation of our fauna conservation goals much more difficult to attain. From the numerous discussions that were held with both field officers and administrative staff some fears do exist within the Territory that the suggested NPWL Commission and NPWL Service advanced by Conservation Minister Cass does constitute a virtual take overof the local operations.

This view appears to be also held by at least several of the Northern Territory Legislative Councillors. In countering this mistaken view I did point out to many of these people including the Northern Territory Reserves Board President that it was essential that a merger was effected between the two authorities that are the custodians of the Northern Territory National Parks and Wildlife Reservations. The response of the Northern Territory Reserves Board is contained in Appendix B. In essence a merger of the two existing Northern Territory park authorities in accepted.

It also recognises the role and direction of a National Park/Wildlife Commission but not a separate NPWL Service.

If there is to be a national policy at Commonwealth level for national parks and they are to be national in the true sense then the National Parks and Wildlife Commission will need to set policies for their establishment and environ; mental protection and the basic activities that can be permitted within the boundaries of the park. However to police those policies it is essential that day to day management of the parks should be in the hands of people familiar with the locality and the unique demands that a particular park places on management. For this reason the National Parks and Wildlife Commission should set standards but not interfere with the day to day control of park management. For example this could be carried out in the Kakadu National Park by the Northern Territory Reserves Board.

It is essential that bureaucracy and red tape not force one central policy for all park managements as each national park is unique. This could be avoided by giving the responsibility of park management to a sub group of the NPWLC.

All of us know the vision that Dr Cass has brought to his ministry and the far reaching plans he has for both the NPWL Commission and the NPWL Service.

Notwithstanding the Minister’s aspirations however, it may well be that in the words of Paul Kruger ‘we take the best of the past and build on it. ‘

In effect if the Conservation Minister can develop the NPWL Commission as a viable body to energise state/territorial park authorities with maximum co-operation the ultimate objectives of our party can be achieved. I do believe that the probable Northern Territory park authority merger married to the Cass NPWL Commission could well bring to the Territory a conservation millennium assuming the Northern Territory Ministry exhibits a similar policy of give and take.

page 3395

RECOMMENDATION

That an early conference between the Ministers involved and the Committee take place.

Senator J. A. Mulvihill,

Chairman,

Combined Caucus Northern

Territory Land Usage Committee

Letter to Senator Mulvihill

Minister for the Northern Territory

Parliament House,

Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 7 November 1974

Dear Senator Mulvihill,

I refer to your letter of 16 September concerning the proposed Top End National Park and the other additional areas sought by the Northern Territory Reserves Board.

Creation of the proposed Northern Area National Park was approved by Cabinet (Submission No. 759, Decision No. 1676) and I was authorised to arrange separate legislation for the creation of National Parks in the Northern Territory. Legislation was passed through the Northern Territory Legislative Council and the Ordinance is now waiting final Government consideration.

In addition, the Minister for Environment and Conservation has recently introduced into the House of Representatives a ‘National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill’ which, if acceptable to both Houses of Parliament, will clear the way for proclamation of the proposed Northern Area National Park.

As soon as some form of legislation is approved the boundaries of the proposed National Park can be finalised. Action is already in hand to acquire those areas of Gimbat and Mudginberri Pastoral Leases recommended by the planning team for inclusion in the proposed Park. As an interim protection, some 1,200 square miles of the Alligator Rivers region has been declared a Wildlife Sanctuary.

In respect of the other areas sought by the Northern Territory Reserves Board, follow up action has been taken by my Department on each proposal submitted by the Board. In the majority of cases reservation cannot proceed until such time as the areas sought revert to Vacant Crown Land.

In some areas, acquisition proceedings are in progress. However, those areas under Exploration Licences or Oil Permits will remain alienated for some considerable time (e.g. Gosse Bluff and Tempe Downs are subject to an Oil Permit that doesnot expire until the year 2022 AD).

Where reservation and dedication is possible, action is proceeding and dedication to the Board is under consideration (e.g. Vernon Islands, Victoria Settlement, Ryan’s Well and Umbrawarra Gorge).

You also raised the question whether any of the land presently held under pastoral leases, in respect of which there are defaults in lease conditions, is likely to revert to the Northern Territory Reserves Board for non-grazing purposes.

As far as I am aware, the Northern Territory Reserves Board has shown no interest in any of the pastoral leases referred to in the August 1974 issue of the N.T. Newsletter. However this is not to say that, as time goes on, other pastoral leases willnot also be in default with their conditions and if these reach the forfeiture stage could be considered in some instances for conservation purposes.

If in the event a pastoral lease is forfeited, you may rest assured that the future disposal of the land involved will be determined having regard to whatever representations have been made to my Department by other interested parties.

Yours sincerely,

page 3395

REX PATTERSON

Senator J. A. Mulvihill,

Parliament House,

Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Senator MULVIHILL:

– In preparing the report to which I have referred, I had the opportunity to visit Cobourg Peninsula, and naturally I also visited the Centre. With Representative

Lamb, I met the officers of the Ranger uranium mining company which is adjacent to Kakardu National Park. The thing that I am perturbed about- I have already alerted the Minister to this- is that when this parks system comes into being and the authority is created the Alligator River system will need effective monitoring in relation to just what powers the Director should have to control mining waste products. I would give him more than he needs rather than fear that he has to run the gauntlet of the Minister for Minerals and Energy or the Minister for the Northern Territory as to who will put up the monitoring system in order to watch what could be done if there is any undue pollution. I say that because, whilst Premier McKell in New South Wales was able to have a tremendous influence on the Snowy Mountains Authority, we know that when private mining companies are not controlled we can have numerous repetitions of the sort of pollution that occured in the Molonglo River. That is one matter that I will be putting to the Minister.

The other matter is this: I spoke to members of the Northern Territory Reserves Board. Anybody who has met Colonel Rose knows the role that he has played in conservation. I mentioned in my report the effort that is being made to coordinate all the activities. I know of the knowhow that is to be found within the Northern Territory Reserves Board; I know also the dedication of the rangers in the Coburg Peninsula area. I am just anxious to see how they will all dovetail in, even in relation to such mundane subjects as promotion, leave and all those sorts of things. All of those things are necessary if we are to have a contented staff. Let me digress a little and take up Senator Carrick ‘s complaint about the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Whilst Representative Lamb and I were engaged in purely a party survey, we took the opportunity to meet the members of the Northern Territory Reserves Board and we met people in the Assembly in Darwin. Although the report was circulated to members of the Parliamentary Labor Party, out of courtesy, I also sent copies of the Northern Territory Reserves Board. I think its members had a fair idea that some of the things contained in the report would ultimately be adopted by the present Government.

Another point I want to stress relates to the Gudgenby National Park, an area in respect of which I had the opportunity to make a field survey. I would like to be sure, if it is to be under the control of Dr Cass and future Ministers for the Environment and Conservation, that there are adequate powers to ensure that the Minister will not be subservient to perhaps some Minister for Minerals and Energy who might encourage a mineral survey in the region. I want to say on a positive note that I read with extreme relish page 3 of the second reading speech which provided a public, exposure of the plans of mining companies. I do not regard myself as one who has a hatred of mining companies, but I have always believed that younger voters have a mounting desire to see that the cards are laid on the table. I believe also that mining companies will be forced to do the right thing to protect their image only if their plans are fully exposed in the Parliament.

When talking about the light that was burning in respect of the cause of conservation I referred to the early post-war period in New South Wales and a former Premier of that State and subsequent Governor-General, Sir William McKell. I think Senator Carrick would agree with me that of course there have been evolutionary changes and that they have been desirable, but without the creation of the fauna panel in New South Wales I do not think we would have had a launching pad from which to develop the cause of conservation. There are obligations on the Australian Government in other facets of wildlife conservation. I have had lengthy correspondence with Mr Broomhill, the Minister of Environment and Conservation in South Australia. Whilst I welcome all this legislation, I say quite respectfully to my own Government that a promise was given to me as Chairman of the Senate Estimates Committee F that defence forces would be available- the Australian Army, the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Australian Navy- for use in patrol work on offshore wildlife sanctuaries. This legislation must be effective. I know the potential of the Northern Territory Top End National Park, but ‘ unless we have teeth in our legislation and absolute co-operation from other Ministers we will find that we can fall short of our objectives.

I did warn Senator Carrick about my throat and I said that my voice today does not have its normal power. 1 simply conclude my remarks with a quotation by a former United States Secretary of the Interior. This applies to the concept of the wilderness system. It reads:

A wilderness system will offer man what many consider the supreme human experience. It will also provide watershed protection, a near-perfect wildlife habitat, and an unmatched science laboratory where we can measure the world in its natural balance against the world in its manmade imbalance.

I leave it at that.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– in reply- I think it is very fitting that Senator Mulvihill should speak on legislation of this nature because he was probably one of the earliest members of Parliament in Australia, if not the earliest, to be consistently advocating the cause of conservation and the cause of national parks. He did it for many years before it became fashionable, before it became trendy, before many people had even given the slightest consideration to the matter. I can well remember that there was a time when a lot of people used to make jokes about Senator Mulvihill bringing up matters relating to the red kangaroo. It has now become quite common for everybody to pay at least Up service to the principles of nature conservation in which Senator Mulvihill played an early role, in fact the earliest role I think of us all in this Parliament, with his advocacy from the very first day that he became a member of the Senate.

The Opposition is supporting the 2 Bills which are before the Senate, although Senator Carrick has told us that he will be moving some amendments. We had a quite long discussion last night on the amendments. I do not want to go into them at this stage because they will be dealt with in Committee, albeit briefly, I trust. Some of the amendments tend to delimit the constitutional assumptions which are made by the Bills. Whether or not this is a good thing is a debatable point. If we are exceeding our constitutional power in the Bill it would seem that there is another place where that can be dealt with rather than here in the Senate. .

The only thing I would like to add at this stage is some reference to the amendment which has been moved by Senator Carrick to the effect that the Australian Government has in some way bypassed the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory and that the statutory authorities and voluntary environmental and conservation groups in the Territory should be involved in these matters. I have been provided with some information on the Government’s role with regard to the Northern Territory which I think refutes the substance of the amendment. The material which has been given to me by the Secretary of the Department of the Environment and Conservation reads as follows:

On 6 November 1973, Dr McMichael and Dr Boden - who are both officers of the Department - attended a meeting of the Northern Territory Legislative Council in Darwin. The Government leader, Mr Martin Finger drew the attention of the Council to the fact that Drs McMichael and Boden were in attendance and available to discuss the proposed National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill with Members.

Only Mr W. J. Fisher and Mrs D. Lawrie took the opportunity to have discussions with Drs McMichael and Boden.

Discussions were had on 6 November 1973 and again on 20/21 November 1973 by Drs McMichael and Boden with the Secretary of the Department of the Northern Territory and Members of the Northern Territory Reserves Board.

On 27 April 1974 Dr McMichael and Mr Gare -

Also an officer of the Department of the Environment and Conservation - attended a public seminar on National Parks held in Darwin and answered questions in relation to the proposed legislation.

Subsequently, despite conflicting legislation introduced in the Northern Territory Legislative Council through the Department of the Northern Territory, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill was prepared as authorised by Cabinet, and two copies were forwarded to the Secretary, Department of the Northern Territory, on 1 9 August 1974. One of these was for the comment of the Northern Territory Reserves Board. The Secretary, Department of the Northern Territory, forwarded his comments on 10 September 1974. Despite a written request to the Department of the Northern Territory on 29 October 1974, no comments from the Reserves Board itself have yet been received, though the Director of the Board did forward his personal comments on 3 September 1974.

The Department’s view is that every effort has been made to consult with those in authority in the Northern Territory in this matter. Difficulties have been created by persons unwilling to see the Australian Government set an example in the management of national parks and wildlife in relation to areas and problems of national significance. An example of the product of such attitudes is the Northern Territory National Parks Ordinance 1974, a most defective piece of legislation, to which the Governor-General’s assent has so far been withheld.

Cabinet’s approval of 17 September 1973 recognised the need to manage nationally significant areas in the Northern Territory, (e.g., Simpsons Gap, Katherine Gorge, Finke River and Kakadu National Parks) through an Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, and to place wildlife management in the Northern Territory under such a body also.

There is nothing in Cabinet’s decision, nor in the Bill at present before Parliament, to prevent continued management of parks and reserves not of national significance by the Northern Territory Reserves Board or any other appropriate Northern Territory agency.

Northern Territory involvement in management decisions regarding wildlife and declared areas under control of the Service will be through effective delegation from the Director of National Parks and Wildlife to properly trained professional staff resident in the Territory, who will consult with local interests. In addition, arrangements can be made for a Northern Territory advisory committee on national parks and wildlife to advise the Minister. The director could be a member of such a Committee, however, it should be recalled that Cabinet specifically decided against a statutory Advisory Committee or Council.

A telegram was sent by Dr Goff Letts, the majority leader in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, to the Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass) to which the Minister has replied. I think that the matters which have been raised in the amendment moved by Senator Carrick are probably dealt with quite adequately in those telegrams in addition to the information which I have just given to the Senate. The telegram from Dr Letts was in fact addressed to Mr Whitlam and was dated 18 November. His telegram reads:

National Parks and Wildlife Bill due further consideration this week will have greatest impact Northern Territory stop There have been no public hearing or proper consultations as suggested in first principle of stated functions of Dept Environment and Conservation stop I have prepared statement for first meeting Legislative Assembly this week stop Not opposed certain concepts in Bill e.g. greater national coordination facilities for training consolidation existing statutes and organisations but must insist on local participation in control and management wildlife and national park stop Without any consultation the Canberra Bill will supersede local legislation stop Minor amendments not enough stop Recommend defer or withdraw Bill until (a) Joint Parliamentary Committee on N.T. tables report (b) Government considers executive role newly elected Assembly after studying above report (c) Ministers for Northern Territory and Environment have discussions Assembly representatives (d) Northern Territory public properly consulted stop Further passage Bill this week would show contempt Territory people and new Assembly.

That is a very strong telegram from Dr Letts particularly in view of the circumstances which were outlined in the memorandum from the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Conservation. Dr Cass replied in a telegram of 20 November last to Dr Letts as follows:

Appreciate your interest and concern National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill stop.

Legislation has been drafted after attendance of senior officers at Legislative Council meeting of 6 November 1973, and subsequent discussions with Northern Territory Reserves Board and officers of Department of Northern Territory stop.

Bill has been prepared to empower Australian Government to set national example by management of nationally significant areas and wildlife resources, in accordance with declared Government policy and with recommendations of House of Representatives Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation stop.

No objection to areas of local significance being managed by an appropriate Northern Territory agency stop I have always envisaged also that a local advisory body would advise on national park and wildlife matters in Northern Territory stop.

Government’s legislative program must proceed stop Please be assured of Northern Territory interests being considered at all times in matters of environment and conservation.

I believe that these telegrams and the facts which I have presented to the Senate make completely unnecessary the amendment which has been moved by Senator Carrick. I trust that the amendment will be rejected and in any event that the Bill will rapidly proceed through its second reading stage.

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President- Senator J. J. Webster)

AYES: 28

NOES: 26

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 5- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 6

The object of this Pan is to make provision for the establishment and management of parks and reserves-

  1. appropriate to be established by the Australian Government, having regard to its status as a national government;
  2. in the Territories;
  3. in the Australian coastal sea;
  4. for purposes related to the rights (including sovereign rights) and obligations of Australia in relation to the continental shelf of Australia;
  5. for facilitating the carrying out by Australia of obligations under, or the exercise by Australia of rights under, agreements between Australia and other countries; or
  6. conducive to the encouragement of tourism between the States and between other countries and Australia, and this Act shall be administered accordingly.
Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

-I move:

At end of clause, add the following new sub-clause:

Land shall not be acquired by Australia for the purposes of this Part if it is land that is dedicated or reserved under a law of a State, without consent of the State, for purposes related to nature conservation or the protection of areas of historical, archaelogical or geological importance or of areas having special significance in relation to Aboriginals.

I simply say that the amendment expresses the view of co-operative federalism, it expresses the intentions that the Minister has stated in his second reading speech and I would hope, on behalf of the Opposition, that the Government would see fit to agree to it.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– The amendment is not acceptable to the Government. We do not have any intention of intervening in parks which have been established by States. We believe that the manner in which the amendment is worded will place an undue restriction on the normal functioning of the national Government. Therefore we oppose the amendment.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-It seems extraordinary that the Government should not accept this amendment. When it was debated in the other place the Government expressed in the strongest terms that it did not intend to use these powers. In fact, the words which the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, Dr Cass, used were that it would be the height of folly for any Australian Government to seek to do so and that it would be foolish to take parks from the States in the manner suggested because the States require moneys. Of course, it would be desirable for the States to increase their parks rather than that there be a taking over of parks by the Commonwealth. I would have thought this was a useful amendment in clarifying the powers and in making it clear that the intention was not to exercise powers like this which would not be in the real interests of conservation but which would rather lead to a competition between 2 governments. I urge the Senate to support the amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Devitt:
TASMANIA

– The question is that the words proposed to be added be added.

Senator WHEELDON:

– Although we oppose this amendment I shall not call for a division.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7

  1. Where an area is declared by Proclamation under subsection (2 ) to be a park or reserve-

    1. the subsoil beneath any land within the area, extending to such depth below the surface as is specified in the Proclamation;
    2. the waters and sea-bed beneath any sea within the area; and
    3. the subsoil beneath any such sea-bed, extending to such depth below the sea-bed as is specified in the Proclamation, shall be taken to be within that park or reserve.

  2. 12) Before submitting a report for the purposesof subsection ( 1 1 ), the Director shall-

    1. a ) by public notice-
    1. state the nature of the report and of any recommendations proposed to be made in the report;
    2. invite interested persons to make representations in connexion with the report by such date, not being less than 60 days after the date of publication of the notice in the Gazette, as is specified in the notice; and

    3. specify an address to which such representations may be forwarded; and

    4. give due consideration to any representations so made, and, when submitting the report, he shall attach to the report any representations so made, together with his comments on those representations.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

-I move:

After sub-clause (6), insert the following sub-clause: (6a) Any proclamation shall be subject to any rights, licences and permits acquired under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967-1973’.

This amendment requires that the proclamation of an area of land as a national park under clause 7 shall be subject to any rights, licences and permits acquired under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. The reason for this amendment is that under this clause of the Bill the GovernorGeneral can declare various areas of land of the Australian continent, both on-shore and offshore, to be a national park provided it is an area of land in which the right, title and interest is vested in Australia. Of course this will severely limit the extent to which these proclamations can be made in respect of the land mass of Australia because most of the land mass is held either in private ownership or in the ownership of the Crown in right of the States. The area may, as provided in sub-clause 1 of clause 7, extend to areas of the Australian coastal sea in respect of the sea bed and sub-soil beneath it, or over a part of the continental shelf of Australia, or an area of land or sea outside the Australian coastal sea in respect of which Australia, with some other country, has certain powers. This amendment is directed to the sea bed or parts of the continental shelf of Australia over which the GovernorGeneral may decide to create a national park. It is true that this is said to be limited to areas over which Australia has a right, title or interest.

As we all know, the question of who owns the seabed or the continental shelf below low water mark involves a vexed legal problem. The sovereignty over that area is to be determined by the High Court of Australia, hopefully within the next 12 months. It may well turn out that the sovereignty over these off-shore areas belongs to the Commonwealth of Australia or Australia, which is the word used by this Bill when referring to the Commonwealth. If that is the case it would appear that clause 7 would give the GovernorGeneral the right to declare as a national park any areas of the seabed or the continental shelf. If that is the case then, of course, a problem arises in relation to all those rights and licences and permits to explore for and to develop oil or natural gas which have been acquired by various companies under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. I probably do not need to reiterate to honourable senators that this is the well known offshore legislation, the exercise of cooperation between the Commonwealth Government and all States to enable the drilling for oil and natural gas around the off-shore areas of Australia on the continental shelf off the Australian continent. These very important rights have been created. Their importance to Australia becomes more obvious every day with the international oil crisis, as has the need to carry on and encourage further exploration for oil and gas in these areas of Australia. It would be very serious if we in this national Parliament were seen to disturb or possibly disturb in any way the rights and titles that are already in existence and which are of such importance to the nation for the reasons I have outlined. Therefore, I state that the object of this amendment is to make it quite clear that no power we are giving to the Government under this legislation can in any way disturb those rights and titles which are already in existence under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– For reasons that I think have been dealt with already in debate both here and in another place, the Government is not prepared to accept this amendment. We believe that legislation of this sort should have primacy over any legislation relating to mining, such as the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. The amendment is not acceptable to the Government.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator D. M. Devitt)

AYES: 26

NOES: 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– I move:

In sub-clause 12, after paragraph (b), insert the following new paragraph: “(c) where operations or future operations for the recovery of minerals or excavations or other works are contemplated provide an environmental impact assessment related to these operations prepared by those proposing to engage in the recovery of minerals, excavations or other works. ‘.

The proposal is intended to ensure that, before submitting a report for the purpose of sub-clause (11), the Director shall, amongst other things: where operations or future operations for the recovery of minerals or excavations or other works are contemplated provide an environmental impact assessment related to these operations prepared by those proposing to engage in the recovery of minerals, excavations or other works.

In fact this is in line with the thinking of all parties in the Senate that there should be environmental impact on such major matters, such vital matters as those affecting national parks and wildernesses. The amendment proposes that it be mandatory to provide environmental impact studies.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South Australia

– I understand the motives behind the amendment with which the Committee is now dealing. They are admirable. But I have consulted with the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) about this matter and I am informed on his initiative and assured that the complete power to accomplish what the amendment proposes will rest in the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Bill and therefore this amendment would result in the duplication of the power to be held in another Act. As I am informed, the acceptance of this amendment would result in the legislation being cluttered with a dual power. That being the case, I do not see any necessity to proceed with it. For that reason, although I would approve the intention which I am told will exist in another Act, I propose to support the Government on the issue.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– Another Bill provides that environmental impact studies should be made in any case. In fact, the amendment is quite unnecessary. But a certain question of principle is involved in that we do not wish to establish the precedent of Bills making provision for environmental impact statements when it is intended that in any event a proposed Act will provide that this requirement should apply. Not only is the amendment unnecessary, but it could give rise to the idea that there were certain Acts of Parliament to which this requirement did not apply, whereas in fact it will.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 8 and 9- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 10

  1. This section has effect notwithstanding any law of Australia or of a State or Territory.
  2. No operations for the recovery of minerals shall be carried on in a park or reserve other than operations that are carried on, with the approval of the Minister of State for Minerals and Energy, by or on behalf of or in co-operation with Australia or an authority of Australia and in accordance with the plan of management relating to that park or reserve.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

In sub-clause (2), leave out ‘Minister of State for Minerals and Energy, by or on behalf of or in co-operation with Australia or an authority of Australia and’, insert, Governor-General ‘.

We are quite satisified with the scheme of this Bill in relation to the authority, in the first place, to mine in a national park. This is clearly provided by the requirement that this can be carried on only in accordance with a plan of management relating to that park. Provision is made in the Bill in the subsequent clauses for such plans of management. The important aspect about the provision of plans of management is that they require the approval of both Houses of the Parliament in the sense that either House of the Parliament may disallow such a plan of management. The scheme of the Bill does require the approval of the Parliament for any mining to take place in a national park. So, in that regard, we are quite satisfied with this arrangement which is entirely in accordance with our policy that the Parliament should control mining in national parks.

However, once mining is permitted by Parliament in a national park, resulting from a plan of management being provided for that national park and Parliament not disallowing it, it seems that sub-clause (2) of clause 10 would require that the actual approval of such mining operations first of all would have to be given by the Minister for Minerals and Energy and furthermore that the mining must be mining by or on behalf of the Commonwealth Government. It would seem that the effect of this sub-clause is to require that any mining which is carried on in a national park should first of all be mining by some public authority, presumably the Petroleum and Minerals Authority. Dr Cass made it quite clear in the debate in the House of Representatives that any mining in a national park would have to be mining carried on by a public authority or by the Government itself, and that that was part of the policy of the Government.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Not quite. In cooperation with the Commonwealth Government. It is not quite the same thing.

Senator DURACK:

- Dr Cass made it quite clear, however one may interpret the words, that that was the intention of them. In the Opposition’s view, if it is the will of the Government that mining should be carried on in a national park and if Parliament approves of mining being carried on in a national park, such mining could just as well- in fact preferably- be carried on by a private mining company as by the Government. If we were in government, naturally it would be our policy to permit, on such terms as were laid down, the mining -

Senator Mulvihill:

– And they would be looser terms, too.

Senator DURACK:

-The whole question of control is to be determined by Parliament and by the Government. All we are saying is that once those conditions are established it is quite unreasonable to require that the mining be carried on by the Government or by a governmental authority. It would be our policy to permit and to encourage such mining to be carried on by an ordinary private mining enterprise.

Furthermore, we believe that it should not be simply a matter for the discretion of the Minister for Minerals and Energy to say what are the conditions of the mining; in other words, to lay down his own mining code for an operation. We say that that should be done at least by the Governor-General; in other words, it should be done on the authority of Cabinet and it should not be in the sole discretion of the Minister for Minerals and Energy. That is the object of our amendment. It has a twofold object: Firstly, of permitting the mining to be carried on by a private mining company, not confining it to the Government or a public authority on its behalf; and, secondly, of requiring that the mining code, so to speak, that would apply to the mining would not be in the absolute discretion of the Minister but would be determined by the Cabinet of the day which would take that responsibility.

In the opinion of the Opposition, if a national park was located within the boundaries of a State- there may well be a Commonwealth national park created in a State- and the Commonwealth Government permitted mining to take place in such a national park, the proper mining laws to apply would be the laws of the State, in the same way as this Parliament applied State laws to Commonwealth places a few years ago when the High Court held that State laws did not apply of their own force.

Senator Webster:

– There is nothing in the amendment to require that.

Senator DURACK:

– There is nothing in the amendment to require that. I am simply stating that that will be the policy of the Opposition when we are in government and when we will be operating such a power as this. The amendment is designed to ensure that any mining that is carried on will not be carried on at the sole discretion of the Minister for Minerals and Energy, and also to ensure that private mining can be permitted and will not be so confined as this clause requires.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I propose to support the Opposition’s amendment on the basis that it is not limiting but expansive on the type of mining that may be carried out and that it places the onus completely on the government of the day as to whether mining will be carried out by a government authority. It is limiting, I suppose, on the power and discretion of the Minister, but only insofar as that he must obtain the Cabinet decision to support his view. I can see nothing unreasonable about the Opposition ‘s amendment. It would certainly allow an interpretation and operation of this clause according to the policy of the Government of the day.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– Although I realise that we do not want to take too long over these matters, there are a couple of observations that I would like to make. The Government would be quite happy to include the word ‘Governor-General’ instead of the words ‘Minister of State for Minerals and Energy’, were that all that the amendment proposes. In any event, if one reads the whole Bill, one finds that it is not just a question of either the Minister or the Cabinet dealing with this matter, but under the plan of management the matter has to be approved by the Parliament. Clause 1 1 (6) (b) states that a plan of mangement shall set out a detailed description of what is being done and shall include: a detailed description of any operations for the recovery of minerals, or excavation, works or other operations, that may be carried on, in the park or reserve.

Clause 11 (7) States:

Where a plan of management provides for operations for the recovery of minerals or for excavation or other works, the plan shall set out any conditions that are to be applicable.

In fact we have already provided that not only will the Cabinet have to deal with the matter but the whole Parliament will have to deal with the matter because of the inclusion of these mining and excavation matters within the framework of the plan of management which has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. I notice that Senator Hall is supporting the Opposition on another matter. Senator Durack has quoted something which he says Dr Cass said in another place. Whatever may have been said elsewhere, the fact is that the relevant clause of the Bill speaks for itself. The Bill provides that for mining operations approval shall be required when the operations are carried on by, or on behalf of or in co-operation with Australia or an authority of Australia. It does not say that these operations have to be carried out solely by Australia or an instrumentality of Australia. It includes a situation where they would be carried on in cooperation with the Australian Government.

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-There would need to be Australian participation of some sort. I am not quite sure what the word ‘co-operation’ means in this sense, but it certainly does not mean that it has to be an Australian Government instrumentality or the Australian Government itself. It could be a private entrepreneur in co-operation with the Australian Government. We believe that if there is to be rnining in areas where there is a national park, and clearly a national asset is in some way being interfered with by the mining operations, it is appropriate in those circumstances that the Australian Government should at least be acting in co-operation with whoever is carrying on that mining. For that reason we do not propose to accept the amendment which has been moved by Senator Durack.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 18- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 19

  1. A program formulated under sub-section ( 1) shall be based upon, among other matters-

    1. ) an examination of the habitat of the wildlife to which the program relates;
    2. an evaluation of the extent to which parks and reserves (including parks and reserves established under a law of a State or Territory) assist in the conservation of the wildlife to which the program relates;
    3. an assessement and analysis of the population of the wildlife to which the program relates; and
    4. consideration of the obligations of Australia under agreements between Australia and other countries relating to the protection and conservation of wildlife, and shall provide for the review, at appropriate intervals, of the matters referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d).
Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

-I move:

After sub-clause (2), insert the following new sub-clause: (2a) This section is not intended to exclude or limit the concurrent operation of any law of a State or Territory. ‘

Clause 19 deals with wildlife conservation programs. It states:

  1. 1 ) The Director may-

    1. formulate and implement; and
    2. co-operate with a State or an authority of a State in formulating and implementing, programs for the purposes of the protection, conservation, management and control of wildlife.

In that spirit and in the knowledge that, both by existing sovereignty and by existing practice, the States today exert control over the wildlife within their States, this clause is consistent with what the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) has said. What it does is to say that the laws which exist in the States shall function and concurrently, of course, that there shall be Commonwealth laws. It says:

This section is not intended to exclude or limit the concurrent operation of any law of a State or Territory.

Incidentally, the phraseology of this is precisely that of section 75, 1 think it is, of the Trade Practices Act- it is the wording of the AttorneyGeneral. We in the Opposition draw a similar meaning from this wording as we do from the wording of the Trade Practices Act and that is that the States should proceed with their sovereignty. Of course, in the event of a conflict, no doubt the issue would have to be resolved at law. There are ordinances in existence today in the Territories and the Assembly of the Northern Territory will produce its functions. I repeat that this amendment is consistent with the opening parts of clause 19. It is consistent with the sovereignty and practice of the States today in the preservation of wildlife. For example, today the States decide when it shall be the closed season or the open season for particular wildlife- shall we say ducks. This situation is recognised and the intention is to preserve what is.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I refer to my dealings with a Queensland Government Minister- a man named Sullivan. On one occasion I sent him a telegram advising him he was out of step concerning kangaroo slaughtering. He told me by letter that he did not care how many kangaroos he killed. This is the point I wish to make. With all deference to Senator Carrick, other Ministers have been more cooperative. I take it the impact of this amendment will be that the Mr Sullivans will be able to do what they like and slaughter as many kangaroos as they want, as Mr Sullivan did.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I have a good deal of sympathy with Senator Carrick in respect of this amendment because of the sensitivity of State governments in relation to their right to administer their own laws. However, I do not think the duck season is a good example. It might very well be a reason for not passing the amendment. From my experience, there have been all sorts of difficulties involved in coordinating the opening and closing of duck seasons.

Senator Missen:

– Ducks are not good federalists.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-No, they are not good federalists, they are centralists. But, of course, I do have sympathy with the inherent right of the States in this matter. Again, I have discussed this with the Minister and I understand his desire not to have the amendment at all. I also understand his desire to have the words ‘or Territory’ deleted from this amendment. I think that is fair enough. The matter in relation to a Territory is not the same as it is in relation to a State. The Commonwealth has a greater responsibility in respect of Territories than it does in respect of States. In a Territory there is not the same self-government as exists in a State. I should like to support the amendment with the exclusion of the words ‘or Territory’. I do not know at what stage I should move for the deletion of these words, Mr Chairman, as I have not before been involved in such procedure in this chamber. However, at the appropriate stage, I shall move to delete the words ‘or Territory’ and then vote for the amendment.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– To simplify procedures, and to save time, Mr Chairman, if we are unable to obtain agreement to the whole amendment, we will accept an amendment to our amendment that the words or Territory’ be deleted.

Senator Withers:

– Can you delete the words from your amendment by leave?

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr Chairman, I seek leave to delete from paragraph (a) of sub-clause ( 2 ) the words ‘ or Territory ‘.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Devitt:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted and the 2 words ‘or Territory ‘ are excluded from the amendment.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I am glad that this has been done. I think all honourable senators know what will be the outcome of a subsequent vote, but the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment as amended. I must confess I am pleased to see the reliance of Senator Carrick upon the Trade Practices Act. It is not an Act which I have known in the past to arouse the same enthusiasm from him and I must confess that at this late stage it does not have quite the same appeal to me as it did once. A remarkable sort of double conversion has been going on in the Senate. With due deference to the draftsmen- no doubt the learned draftsmen, as they ail are- who prepared the Trade Practices Act, I am still not sure what is being said here or what is proposed by the amendment. I am a little nonplussed in trying to work out what is supposed to happen when it is found that conflicting laws have been made on the same subject by the Australian Parliament and a State parliament. I really do not know. I do not quite follow it. In any event, I can see that the amendment is going to be passed. No doubt we will all be much wiser, and probably also sadder if things keep on going in the way in which they have been going, when we reassemble next year and are perhaps able to deal with the matter in a more informed manner. The Government rejects the amendment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 20 to 68- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 69 (International agreements).

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– As I said in my contribution to the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill, clause 69 relates to international agreements and seeks to give the Governor-General power to make regulations under international agreements. I pointed out in that speech that this is giving a totally unlimited and unseen power. I demonstrated by referring to one of the 5 treaties which the Government says have been signed already that we would be giving virtually an open ended regulation-making power to the Government. The Opposition does not believe that treaties should be implemented in this country by backdoor or regulation-making processes. I rely on my earlier speech in this respect. A consequential amendment is proposed to be moved later. The Opposition will vote against the clause as it now stands.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– The high sign, as I think it is called, has already been given to me by one of my colleagues. So I do not think that there is any point in pursuing this matter very far. I can see the problems which have been raised by Senator Carrick. The Government will not accept the amendment. No doubt, in view of the sign that has been made to me, this matter will be going again to the House of Representatives. It is possible that it will be dealt with there in a manner which is more satisfactory to the Opposition and to others including, I have to confess, myself who have certain misgivings about the present wording of the relevant clause.

Clause negatived.

Clause 70 agreed to.

Clause 71

  1. Without limiting the generality of sub-section (1), regulations may be made-

    1. regulating trade and commerce in connexion with wildlife;
    2. regulating or prohibiting the pollution of water in a manner harmful to wildlife;
    3. regulating or prohibiting the use of vessels in, and the passage of vessels through, parks and reserves and the landing and use of aircraft in, and the flying of aircraft over, parks and reserves;

  2. Regulations with respect to a matter shall be regulations applicable to that matter only so far as that matter may be dealt with under the powers of the Parliament, including its powers with respect to-

    1. external affairs, including the implementation of agreements between Australia and other countries;
    2. trade and commerce with other countries and among the States,
Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– I move:

Paragraph (c) of sub-clause (2) of clause 71 relates to the regulating of trade and commerce in connection with wildlife. I have moved this amendment simply because such a provision is inconsistent with the Constitution and with the practices of the States. The regulation of trade and commerce in connection with wildlife within the States is at this moment the function of the States. Externally it is a customs or export power function of the Commonwealth Government. It may be that the Government could succeed with such a provision by adding ‘within its Territories’ to it because it would have that power. The power sought to be given under this provision relates to trade and commerce in connection with wildlife within the States, which would mean an enormous open ended pursuit of power within the States. That is a power that we think should be restricted. Therefore we have moved for its deletion.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I would like the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) to enlighten me on something before he replies to that matter. The Minister and Senator Carrick would know that Senator Willesee was asked on an earlier occasion about some reclamation work the New South Wales Government was doing in the Newcastle industrial area. It was argued that the area is a habitat for certain bird life that comes over from Asia. Mr Punch, a Minister in the Askin Government, simply said that they were not interested in co-operating with the Commonwealth. This is the impasse, senator, which I think we are trying to get over.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I also support the Opposition in that I would preserve the rights of the States. I believe that the Commonwealth should not try to impinge on intrastate trade. But it seems to me- and I think this was put to me when talking to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) this morning- that there could be some sort of vacuum in the territories if the paragraph were simply deleted. At least paragraph (f) of sub-clause (4) states: trade and commerce with other countries and among the States . . .

This is a quote from the Constitution, I understand. It was suggested that we should add: ‘in a territory’. I think Senator Carrick went halfway towards adopting the suggestion. If this were done, paragraph (c) of sub-clause (2) would read: ‘regulating trade and commerce in connection with wildlife in a territory’. That would give the Australian Government the right, of course, to operate where I think it legitimately must. I am no lawyer, but there might be some argument about the application of constitutional power. At least the addition of these words would clear up the position and make the clause acceptable. I would move accordingly if my suggestion is acceptable.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I suggest that Senator Hall not move his amendment and Senator Carrick seek leave to amend his amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Devitt:

- Senator Carrick ‘s amendment proposes to delete paragraph (c) completely. It seems to me that if Senator Carrick were to withdraw his amendment Senator Hall could then move his proposed amendment.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I move:

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– This amendment, of course, is much more satisfactory from the Government’s point of view. The Government is primarily concerned about the territories, particularly the Northern Territory, so far as this Bill is concerned, although we are mindful of the sort of matter raised by Senator Mulvihill. We would prefer the amendment not to be passed and we shall vote against it.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– I move:

Here again it may be necessary to add the words in a territory’ if the Government feels that they should be added. The paragraph as it stands now appears to give the Government an unrestrained right to prohibit the pollution of water in a manner harmful to wildlife which would, as I think I pointed out, mean that if the Government felt that the ponds in Centennial Park in Sydney were harmful to wildlife it would have the power to act instead of asking the State Government to act. I am sure it is not the Government’s intention to do this. It is our desire to be co-operative.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator CARRICK (New South Wales)-I move:

The intention is to delete the paragraph. It may well be that when the Bill gets to the other place there will be second thoughts about rewriting it. I think honourable senators might acknowledge that there are some good thoughts contained within the sub-paragraph. In my speech in the second reading debate I raised the principle that the Government was seeking power to create parks on the high seas and that this was an infringement of the convention relating to the high seas. Quite clearly, if the Government thinks it can act it must respect international treaties. It cannot seek to regulate the passage of vessels on the high seas. The treaty is emphatic on that point. It seems to me that this paragraph ought to go back to the drawing board. We think it is unsatisfactory as it now stands and we have moved for its deletion. We think this may well be a matter for second thoughts.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I understand Senator Carrick ‘s concern about the width of this paragraph but I also believe that there needs to be pretty wide expression in this area. Whilst he used the term ‘high seas’ we can also consider small coves, limited reefs and secluded areas which must be protected from overuse by rapidly expanding recreational forcesboats, for instance. I think it is impossible to limit this to what we probably would all like to see because there are so many things not specified and unknown at the moment but which will have to be met by this paragraph. I do not object to the sentiments expressed by Senator Carrick but I think that the Minister will need this power in his administration.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– I think there are other reasons as well. One of my colleagues pointed out by private interjection that conceivably this paragraph could forbid the passage of vessels through the Great Barrier Reef. I do not mean in regard to commercial purposes but if the Reef were a great national park. There seem to be a variety of difficulties associated with this paragraph and I want to make one thing clear. I acknowledge Senator Hall’s point. We are not being vexatious; we are really asking that this paragraph be sent back to the drawing board. We hope it will come back with the various modifications. If there were a way of modifying it here we would do so in good faith but we can see no way of doing so.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I and other people have looked carefully at this paragraph and the proposed amendment which I discussed at some length last night with Senator Carrick. However, it seems to us that it is not practicable to amend it. First of all we would say: Yes, this is so; it may be necessary for the preservation of wildlife and the marine national park in the Great Barrier Reef, for example, to prohibit various craft travelling through it, particularly if the way in which they travel is damaging to the Reef and to the wildlife.

Senator DURACK:

– Are you not bringing in a special Bill to cover the Barrier Reef?

Senator WHEELDON:

-That relates to the Great Barrier Reef but there will be other areas as well. I do not want to refer only to the Great Barrier Reef. Doubtless there will be other reserves and they may well be on the high seas or close to the shore and not be part of the Great Barrier Reef. The same thing may apply to them. Senator Hall referred to a small cove or bay.

There may be a small cove or bay somewhere where motor boats will be prohibited because they destroy whatever we are attempting to preserve there. I think it is necessary that we have this power. I suppose we have to rely on the common sense of the Government and the people who will administer the Act to not make us look foolish by placing ridiculous embargoes on activity in these areas.

With regard to the convention relating to the high seas, it may well be that this paragraph in some way does contravene our adoption of that convention. But if that is so, the Act will be invalid and there is no need to amend it here. If we are to amend the Bill here in order to omit something which may be invalid- if that is the reason for doing it- then we are usurping the function of the High Court and there is no real need to go into the matter here. If it is invalid it will be tested sooner or later and be found to be invalid. Our advice is that it is not invalid. Maybe the advice is wrong; we do not know. In any event our advice is that if it does contravene the Convention on the High Seas there is no need to amend the Bill; it will be dealt with elsewhere. For that reason the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment which has been moved.

Amendment negatived.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– I move:

I said in my argument that clause 69 should be deleted and that it is too wide a function to give to the Commonwealth the powers of implementing treaties by regulation. This paragraph reads: external affairs, including the implementation of agreements between Australia and other countries;

The deletion of this paragraph in no way prevents the Government from implementing its treaties by other means. Therefore it is consistent with clause 69 being deleted that this paragraph be deleted.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– The Government will accept this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– This is my final amendment Mr Temporary Chairman. I thank you for your patience. I move:

Sub-clause (f) states: trade and commerce with other countries and among the States, including the import or export of animals and plants:

The Opposition seeks to delete ‘and among the States’ basically in terms of asserting what we regard to be existing sovereignties.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I support the Opposition’s amendments. The provision seems to be quite in contradiction with the Constitution. I think the amendment is selfexplanatory.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– We regard this provision as being necessary for the successful carrying out of the purposes of the Bill and will not accede to the amendment proposed by Senator Carrick.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3407

STATES GRANTS (NATURE CONSERVATION) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 5 December, on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3407

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (IMPACT OF PROPOSALS) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 December, on motion by Senator Douglas McLelland:

That the Bill be now read a second time:

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– This Bill brings into focus an important tendency in the modern community to assert that when government is making policies of any kind it should take into account the effect, if any, upon the environment of those policies. Therefore over recent years the States have passed legislation insisting that where some action is to be taken by a private or other authority there be prepared a document, an environmental impact study, and that that document be used by governments in determining whether the particular proposal should go on. To the extent that this document should be considered in all decision making of government, the Bill has the total and unequivocal support of the Opposition. The Opposition believes that governments at all levels should look to the impact on the environment before they take action. It supports the Council of Environmental Ministers which, when considering procedural matters, agreed on what should be the nature of an environmental impact study and decided that all statements should assert the need for the particular undertaking, its objective, what alternative means there are to achieve the same ends or goals and what the environmental impact might be. To that extent again the Opposition would be in full sympathy.

The Opposition stresses that here again the States have been extremely progressive. My own State of New South Wales has been a pacesetter and inevitably the Commonwealth looks towards it, and specifically towards it, for its own purposes. The Government has said that it proposes this Bill in terms of those matters which are of Commonwealth concern. The real nub of this matter is the methodology- not whether there ought to be an impact study, because the answer to that would be that there ought to be, but who should do it, when it should be done and by what formula. In America there is a rather arbitrary approach to this. As I understand it, in America environmental impact studies are mandatory before any proceedings are undertaken and the argument about them is taken before courts of law. Inevitably, therefore, huge expenditure is involved in the preparation of these studies and also huge litigation is involved.

The Commonwealth has not adopted- I think wisely- the American system. It has not insisted that in every undertaking a study should be made. It has insisted on the right of government to require such a study, to require a particular form of study and the method of carrying it out. It has provided a means whereby, if necessary, a commissioner shall conduct a public hearing- in some circumstances a private hearing- and therefore the public can be involved. Finally, a document can be given to the Cabinet as a basis for consideration. Spelt out in that way, the proposal is unobjectionable- in fact, it is desirable.

The question, though, arises as to whether the Commonwealth comes into possible conflict with the States and whether its actions or its methodology may be against civil liberties and may be harsh and unconscionable. The real, basic and fundamental criticism by the Opposition would arise if it were sought under this measure to have any duplication of impact studies when the States would normally undertake them or if there were to be any overriding or assertive power by the Commonwealth Government in this regard.

In the other place a number of questions of this type were raised with the Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass). The Minister was asked whether moneys allocated to the States by the Loan Council would be regarded as being moneys, when spent, which have a Commonwealth interest and whether therefore, the Government could possibly intervene in their expenditure. The Minister was asked about the query of the Premier of Queensland as to whether hearings held under this legislation could prejudice the operations of the local government court or the land court. He was asked also whether in fact it was likely there would be duplication between the Australian Governent and State governments. Conscious of the limitation of time, I have a letter written by the responsible Minister, Dr Cass, to the shadow Minister in the other place, Mr Hunt. In that letter Dr Cass sought to answer some of these questions. I seek leave to have this letter incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marriott)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, it is so ordered. (The document read as follows)-

Dear Ralph,

I write concerning several matters which you raised in the debate last Wednesday night on the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Bill. I did not answer them at that time because of the time constraints of which you were aware.

You raised concerns about the Bill that have been conveyed to you by the Premier of Queensland and the Minister for Conservation in Victoria. Their principal concern appeared to be that the Bill might be used in relation to Loan Council approvals. In this respect, in the course of drafting the legislation, the First Parliamentary Counsel expressed the view that the Bill does not cover proposals for the application by States of funds, the borrowing of which have been approved by the Loan Council, unless some agreement or arrangement with the Australian Government is involved. In the latter respect, it is my understanding, from discussions that have occurred within the Standing Committee of the Australian Environment Council, that the States would not be prepared to enter into any such agreement or arrangement.

In respect of the Queensland Premier’s concern that hearings held under this legislation could prejudice the operations of the Local Government Court or the Land Court I assure you that, within the constraints imposed by the legislation, every endeavour will be made to ensure that our procedures are compatible with those of the State and local authorities concerned.

Turning to the other issues raised by the Victorian Ministry for Conservation, I too am concerned about the duplication of the Australian and State Government activities in this area, having regard, in particular, to the very scarce resources that are available for our use. It is for this reason that I am encouraged by agreement that has so far been reached in the Australian Environment Council on this matter. I am also encouraged that nearly all of the State Governments are adopting this E.I.S. technique. You might recall that I mentioned the role of the States in relation to this legislation in the Second Reading Speech. I feel sure that as procedures develop and as each Government becomes more familiar with the requirements of the other, the opportunities for duplication will be reduced. I might say, that in respect of Victoria, my departmental officers advise me that already they are relying very considerably on advice received from the Victorian Ministry of Conservation in assessing the environmental effects of proposals being developed in that State.

On the question of the practicality, or otherwise of the procedures that it is proposed be established under Clause 6 of the Bill, I am aware that we are, in a sense, pioneering and that we shall have to tread warily. It is for this reason that we are specifying our detailed requirements in the form of Administrative Procedures rather than including them in the Act itself. Whether the Procedures turn out to be impractical will depend very much on how they are administered. In this respect, I am very conscious on the need to match our demands for impact statements with the resources we have available.

Yours sincerely,

page 3409

MOSS CASS

The Honourable R. J. D. Hunt, M.P.,

Parliament House,

Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

The Opposition has sought to do 2 things in relation to these matters. Firstly, it has endeavoured to ensure that there would be no duplication and that the Commonwealth would always seek to have the States undertake these studies if the States were the responsible bodies and that there would be no duress. In the Committee stages the Opposition will be moving an amendment with the hope of lessening the possibility of duplication. Secondly, we are worried about a number of procedural matters- the powers of procedure by the commissioners in seeking to obtain evidence and to inspect property. The Opposition proposes to amend clause 24 which states:

For the purposes of an inquiry under this Act, a Commissioner, or a person acting with the authority of a Commissioner, may, after giving reasonable notice to the occupier of any land, building or place-

enter and inspect the land, building or place; and

inspect any material on the land, or on or in the building or place.

In the Committee stages the Opposition will move for the inclusion of the ordinary civil liberties provision- one which the Government, when in Opposition, strongly advocated- which is that before any commissioner or person acting with the authority of the commissioner shall go upon private property they shall make a proper application before a justice of the peace, satisfy the justice of the peace of their right to enter the property and of the necessity to do so and get a warrant from the justice of the peace. We will be moving that amendment because otherwise there is inherent in the Bill the danger that we will have a massive infringement of civil liberties. It must be kept in mind that in the interests of the environment, in the interests of ecology, we are seeking to allow officials to carry out widespread and virtually open-ended inspections in virtually every function of life. If this is so, some protection for the private citizen should be written into the legislation.

Basically the principle of carrying out an impact study is good. The States have been undertaking those sorts of studies. The Opposition agrees with the idea that the carrying out of such a study should not be mandatory or litigated continuously in the courts. The Opposition fundamentally would be opposed to these studies if they were to be an intrusive thing or if they were to be a toe-hold device of the Government. The danger running through this Bill is that, using the device of section 96 grants or other devices, the Commonwealth Government will seek to intrude into all sorts of processes of the States and force inquiries. In this regard the Minister has made statements, both by letter and otherwise, that this is not intended. I have included in Hansard the text of the Minister’s letter which deals with the Loan Council and other matters, and particularly with the Queensland Premier’s query. Time does not permit me to warn of the inherent dangers to federalism, the duplication of costs and the duplication of bureaucracy; all that one can do is to warn. It ought to be said, however- the Minister himself has said it- that the obtaining of such an environmental impact study does not of itself give the Minister any necessary weapon. Having obtained the impact study, the Minister has no necessary punitive weapon; he himself cannot take official action. The document goes to the Cabinet and seeks to guide the Cabinet.

We are now entering into an entirely new phase of decision making. In some countries the methodology of obtaining these impact studies and bringing to decision makers the responsibility for the environment has created an immense slowing down of processes and much litigation. We support the principle of the measure. During the Committee stage we will move a series of amendments.

Senator CARRICK:

-We do not regard the amendment we propose in relation to civil liberties as small. We think that it would take 5 minutes to deal with. We have undertaken to give this Bill to the Government by 6 p.m.; we will give it to the Government by 10 minutes to six. If that is the case, we will be keeping faith. Basically we would regard our proposed amendments as being fundamental. We will support the Bill with those qualifications.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

– I feel that today should be named ‘Dr Cass’s day’ because the Senate has already agreed to 3 measures, albeit with some amendments, dealing with conservation and we are now debating a fourth Bill which I think goes much farther than has ever before been attempted in Australia. The 4 Bills to which I refer represent the culmination of 2 years of extremely hard work and enlightened dedication by the Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass), and their significance should not be overlooked. As I have said, this is the first time in Australia that there has been any statutory attempt to go nearly so far in relation to environmental impact statements as this Bill seeks to go. The measure deals not just with pollution, not just with aesthetics, not just with environmental matters in any narrow sense. In order that the true effect of the Bills can be understood I invite the attention of the Senate to the extremely embracing definition of the word environment’ appearing in clause 3. It is defined as including ‘all aspects of the surroundings of man, whether affecting him as an individual or in his social groupings’. It does seem to me that too many persons at least up to date, have taken the view that environmental matters are narrow in their concept. I believe that they are not and that they are are extremely wide. I invite the attention of the Senate to the first proclamation of the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment as to the scope of the environment as that proclamation saw it. It is defined in these words:

Man is both creature and moulder of his environment, which gives him physical sustenance and affords him the opportunity for intellectual, moral, social and spiritual growth. In the long and tortuous evolution of the human race on this planet a stage has been reached when, through the rapid acceleration of science and technology, man has acquired the power to transform his environment in countless ways and on an unprecedented scale. Both aspects of man’s environment, the natural and the man-made, are essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment of basic human rightseven the right to life itself. ‘

I would for myself add the further point that I do not think that in the ultimate any question of the environment in the true sense can be considered in isolation from the question of planning. In other words, environmental issues do not exist in a vacuum; they are related to the planned development of this earth and everything about it for the benefit of man.

I want to pay a very brief tribute to the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, Dr Cass, because I know from extremely bitter personal experience how difficult it is at times for a Minister charged with this type of portfolio to be able to achieve ministerial co-operation, at least completely. Yet, in his quiet unassuming way, Dr Cass, with great respect to him if I may say so, has gone about his ministerial duties with extreme efficiency, so much so that he has been able to persuade his colleagues to insert in this Bill a provision that I believe to be unique so far as statutory provisions are concerned. I refer to clause 8 of the Bill which provides:

Each Minister shall give all such directions and do all such things as, consistently with any relevant laws as affected by regulations under this Act, can be given or done by him-

for ensuring that procedures for the time being approved under this Act are given effect to in and in connexion with matters dealt with by the Department administered by him and that any authority of Australia in relation to which he has ministerial responsibilies observes, and assists in giving effect to, those procedures; and

There is a situation in which a statutory duty is cast by that clause on every Minister of the Australian Government. It has no parallel. I think it is unlikely that any government would have the vision and the courage to attempt any such parallel in the future, but that is what the Minister has been able to achieve. He also- and this I think is an indication of the extent of the burden which he is prepared to assume unto himself- has included in clause 10 a provision that any person, any member of the public whatsoever, may, by notice in writing, require the Minister to inform him in writing as to what action, if any, has been taken, or is proposed, for ensuring consideration of the environmental aspects of the matter, and the Minister shall promptly inform the person in writing accordingly. Not many Ministers would have been prepared to assume such a burden as is involved in complying with clause 10, but the present Minister has done so.

I will be as brief as I can in dealing with what I regard as an extremely important measure. The Bill contains a dual approach to the problem with which it seeks to deal. The first is by clause 6 under a scheme of administrative procedures approved by the Governor-General. Both in another place and here this afternoon doubts were expressed as to whether there would not be some infringement of so-called States rights and some duplication. The simple answer to that is that the effect of the Bill and therefore the application of the administrative procedures cannot transcend the constitutional power of the Australian Government. That is why clause 5 of the Bill has been drafted with what obviously is extreme care. The matters relating to the question of possible duplication between the Australian Government and the State governments are matters in which there is a joint interest, created by the circumstances which are dealt with in clause 5 of the Bill. That being so, it would obviously be a matter of administrative good sense if both governments involved discussed the matter and decided whence the environmental impact study would come. I see no reason to fear any duplication. From my experience over recent years I would have thought that all States would have welcomed the existence of the scheme of administrative procedures which is set out in clause 6 of the Bill.

The second approach which the Minister has included in this BUI is one of extreme importance to the public, and that is his discretionary power in clause 1 1 to require formal inquiries to be carried out by commissioners, with access by the public to those inquiries and with access to the results of those inquiries. This is something for which conservationists have been figting for a very long time. They have not had a great deal of success in the States in relation to that matter. One should mention what this Bill does not cover lest there be any public misunderstanding. It does not apply to any matters which are outside the constitutional powers of the Australian Government. Therefore, in a matter which is entirely a State matter this Federal law has no application. I regret very much- but I am bound to concede the legal accuracy of the advice that was tendered to the Australian Government- that the Bill will not cover any matters or projects which are the result of the allocation of loan funds to the States or to, the authorities. That was considered in a formal legal way to be outside the power of the Australian Parliament, and one must accept it. One can only hope that one day by constitutional referendum the powers of the Australian Parliament will be increased so that this measure can be a much more embracing one.

I do not wish to labour the matter very much more execpt to say that this Bill gives me an opportunity to raise a matter that has been of considerable concern to me for some time. I refer to the danger to the nation of Australia of the unbridled export of woodchips, mainly to Japan. The situation has been reached at which we are now exporting close to 3 million tons of woodchips per annum. The value of those woodchips- I do not set a great deal of store on their actual value per se- is nearly $40m. Most of these wood chips come from Tasmania although the exports from New South Wales in the last financial year increased to a point at which they exceeded half a million tons. I do not believe it correct to say that anyone has ever made a proper assessment of the effect of the wood chip industry in relation to the whole ecology of Australia and to the general question of the environment. The attraction of quick money has drawn a curtain over the eyes of some governments to the extent that they are just content to accept money and not give a hang about the future. It is worse when one realises that, to my knowledge, no attempt has been made to impose any statutory obligation on private individuals and companies which in my view are indulging, together with State governments, in the rape and spoliation of part of our natural resource heritage.

Senator Steele Hall:

– You have some examples from Tasmania.

Senator EVERETT:

– It is from that somewhat bitter experience, Senator Hall, that I speak. One could debate this matter at length but all I want to say is that if this Bill is passed the first thing I propose to do is to request the Minister for the Environment and Conservation to direct an inquiry on a national basis under clause 1 1 into all aspects of the wood chip industry so far as it affects Australia and our future.

It is unfortunate, perhaps, that this Bill, for reasons that are beyond control, is being debated in the dying hours of this sitting. It is important in my view that governments realise that they are not the beneficial owners of the earth, the sea and the air of the jurisdictions in which they operate. They are trustees only, and those governments will be judged by the manner in which they carry out that trust. The Australian Labor Government and the Minister, Dr Cass, in particular, have grasped the nettle with this Bill and they have given the nation of Australia a basis for hoping that man will intelligently mould to his total environment, including his social groupings, to his advancement and happiness. In conclusion this is a day for which responsible environmentalists have hoped but their hopes, I suggest, would never have materialised without the enlightened policies of the Australian Government which now are in statutory form. I support the Bill.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– This Bill, as earlier speakers have indicated, gives expression to a wholly commendable objective but it is a Bill which has some features about it in respect of which I have reservations. I think it is fair to say that the Opposition as a whole has reservations about features of the Bill. It is one of those pieces of legislation about which any Opposition has to make its judgment. When there are desirable and not so desirable features about a Bill an Opposition has to decide on which side of the fence it comes down. I think everybody acknowledges that in the late twentieth century the twin questions of how man controls his environment and how man respects his privacy are the most vital questions for the development and future of mankind. We see, as we did not see earlier, despoliation of our natural environment inways which were quite perceptibly occurring but the import of which was never sufficiently appreciated. We now see the way in which the natural features of a continent are disappearing. It is incumbent upon mankind to do what it can to preserve the natural heritage which is ours. This Bill is an attempt by the Commonwealth Government to give effect to that objective in this Commonwealth area.

Equally I believe there is need for man to feel that he is no longer constrained by the mass, pressures and influences, that he is moved and manipulated by pressures over which he has no influence and that the essential quality and integrity as an individual are able to be preserved. These are 2 objectives which I know are at the forefront of thinking in the Liberal Party today, and occasionally they come in conflict. I think there is an element of conflict in this measure which we are passing through the Senate today. I hope that just in the expression of some views we can resolve these problems in the future and at least make the community aware that desirable and commendable as the protection of the environment is, it ought not to be done at the cost of the preservation of individual privacy. These are questions which I think ought to be in the forefront of our political awareness for the future.

Against that background, I will say specifically 3 things about this legislation. The first is that it gives expression to an initiative which was adopted by the previous Liberal Government in a quite memorable statement which was made to the Senate on 24 May 1972. The concept of impact statements in Australia received its real impetus from the statement which was made on behalf of the McMahon Government at that time. I simply refer to one aspect of what was a very long statement made in both Houses on 24 May 1972. On the subject of impact statements the statement made on behalf of the then Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts read: . . I wish to announce that the Government has decided to introduce a system of ‘impact statements’ designed to protect the environment. That is to say that when a Commonwealth Minister prepares a submission to the Cabinet on any proposal that has some relevance to the environment that submission must be accompanied by a statement setting out the impact the proposal is likely to make on the environment. This ‘impact statement’ will, I am sure, become an important element in decision-making. I might add that State projects for which Commonwealth financial assistance is sought will also need to be supported by assurances that all environmental factors have been considered and evaluated.

In the time which still remained to the previous Government, that policy was implemented. I think that it has been a policy which the succeeding Government has sought to implement, although there have been some notorious occasions, like the proposed Galston airport project, on which no impact statement was sought beforehand. But this legislation, I think, is a culmination of the earlier policies and it represents the truth of the prophecy that impact statements would become an important part of decision making. However, one difference is to be noted, and that is that under the proposals which the Government is implementing, it seeks to have its own impact statement procedures apply to Commonwealth financed State projects, whereas the view of the previous Governmentand it would be the view which the present Opposition parties would preferably follow- was that the State procedures ought to be sufficient for an effective evaluation of impact on the environment of various types of proposals.

As Senator Carrick indicated earlier, the States have developed procedures and means by which this evaluation can take place which I think are quite extraordinary in their range. I know as far as Victoria is concerned- and this has been borne out in relation to the Newport power station environmental protection hearings- that the steps which the Victorian Government has taken have subjected the whole machinery of the executive government to the decisions of the Protection Authority and the Environmental Appeals Board. That, I believe, is an indication of the strength of the legislation in Victoria. As I understand the position in the Commonwealth legislation, the Minister still ultimately has a residual authority which may or may not work out desirably in practice. But that is for implementation in due course. The second aspect relates to whether or not the width of this legislation may in fact be misused in terms of the way in which the environmental procedures can be used.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Before the sitting of the Senate was suspended I was indicating that the power which the Commonwealth Government was asserting in respect of this environment protection legislation was immensely wide. The environment is defined as including all aspects of the surroundings of man, whether affecting him as an individual or in his social groupings. ‘Environmental’ has a corresponding meaning. When we consider the matters which this Bill is giving the Commonwealth Minister a power to examine, we see that they cover almost every aspect of human endeavour. That is a mighty significant and far-reaching range of power.

Senator Everett:

– Does the honourable senator object to that in the context of this Bill?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I find that a very difficult question to which to give an immediate answer. I think the environment is immensely important. Over the years it has not been given the adequate appreciation which I hope, for the balance of this century, mankind will give it. I feel that to give any government in Australia the powers which this Bill gives- that is, to roam into all areas of human affairs as this Bill permitsought to be scrutinised. I have said that it is a matter for judgment for us in Opposition to determine how we approach the matter.

Senator Everett:

– But the Opposition will vote against the Bill.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-No, we have decided that we will support the Bill. Having said that, I think it is important, nevertheless, to draw attention to the width of the powers and the dangers which are involved on the basis that it might even be a warning to Government that if the powers are exercised or abused in a certain way then, the Opposition, when it comes back into Government in the not too distant future will, I hope, correct and remedy some of the things contained in this legislation. Senator Carrick expressed the Opposition’s viewpoint. I do not want to say anything which detracts from the propositions he put forward. I notice that the language of the Bill and the letter which the Minister (Dr Cass) sent to the honourable member for Gwydir, Mr Hunt, who is the Opposition spokesman in he House of Representatives on his matter, indicate the way in which this measure can be dealt with. There is not doubt that the Commonwealth can look into the environmental aspects of any State proposal financed with

Commonwealth money. Very few State projects are not financed with Commonweath money. Therefore the Commonwealth’s range of activity is exceedingly large. This aspect is not answered by what Dr Cass said to Mr Hunt. He simply said that the principle concern of the State Ministersthat is, the Premier of Queensland and the Minister for Conservation in Victoria- appears to be that the Bill might be used in relation to Loan Council approvals. In this respect in the course of drafting the legislation the First Parliamentary Counsel expressed the view that the Bill does not cover proposals for the application by States of funds, the borrowings of which have been approved by the Loan Council unless some agreement or arrangement with the Australian Government is involved.

The point is that almost every cent of the moneys that are borrowed by the States are the subject of some agreement or arrangement with the Australian Government. Therefore, there is virtually not one State project which is not susceptible to the Commonwealth controls contained in this legislation. I believe that it is blinking at the plain facts contained in the legislation and in the Minister’s letter to ignore that. I go further: On 3 1 October I asked the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation who represents the Minister for the Environment and Conservation in this place a question about the Newport power station project. I asked the Minister whether he was aware that a group of unions in Victoria was standing over the Victorian Government by simply telling it that the power station, essential for Victoria’s needs, would not be built at Newport. I also asked the Minister whether he was aware that this attitude was being taken against a background of exhaustive inquiries into the environmental impact of such a power station and the fact that those inquiries had been held and that all of them had been resolved in favour of the power station. I asked the Minister whether he was prepared, in the interests of balanced and sensible environmental policies and with a view to upholding the authority of the State of Victoria, to express his strong support for the Victorian Government’s position. Senator Wheeldon, the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, stated quite categorically in simple words ‘no’. In other words, he has demonstrated that so far as he is concerned he will not support the Victorian Government’s position. He said so in this chamber. I ask him now, if he has either the courage or the knowledge to do so, whether he will assert that so far as this legislation is concerned it will not be used as a vehicle to examine the Newport power station. I ask him that seriously and quite deliberately in the hope that he will give an indication now as to whether the Victorian Govenment can expect the Commonwealth Government’s assertion of authority with regard to the new power station.

The legislation is clearly wide enough. I regret that we are not able to amend the legislation in order to prevent the Victorian Government’s position being recognised under this legislation. But I ask the Minister whether he will say that the Commonwealth Government will not use this legislation in any way to affect the implementation of the Victorian Government’s policy with regard to the Newport power station. I shall repeat my question because I see that he is speaking with other Ministers. I hope that he will advert to this matter in the course of his reply because I think it is an important matter upon which we are entitled to receive an answer. The Victorian legislation which will be to a large extent duplicated by this legislation- indeed, it may even be superseded, but ultimately that is for the High Court to decide- indicates that there is an Environment Protection Authority and an Environment Appeals Board which can examine whether projects in Victoria are consistent with what is required for the protection of the environment. I have said earlier that that legislation has teeth. It subjects all proposals of the Government to the examination of the Authority and the Board. The Authority and the Board have both decided that the Victorian Newport power station is a project which ought to be continued. We know at the present time that in Victoria there is a move by certain conservation interests and certain trade union leaders to prevent the Newport power station from being constructed.

The union leaders had every opportunity in hearings before the Authority and the Board to put their case. The unions concerned chose to put no case whatsoever. Two or three conservation bodies, including the Conservation Foundation, did put a case to the Authority and to the Appeals Board, and the Appeals Board rejected the case which was put by these bodies. Fairness requires that they accept the decision of the Authority because it was a decision made after examination of the evidence. But notwithstanding those facts we find that certain union leaders, without the consent or authority of their union members, are prepared to tell the Victorian Government that this Newport power station will not be constructed. It is a challenge to the authority of the Government and it is being conducted in the name of environment protection -

Senator Wheeldon:

– But what has it got to do with the Bill?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-And environment protection, to answer the Minister, is the name of this Bill. All I am concerned to ascertain from the Minister is whether he will give an assurance that the provisions of this Bill will not be used -

Senator Wheeldon:

– Yes, I will give you that assurance.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– … to thwart in any way the implementation by the Victorian Government of the decisions which have been made by the Victorian Government through the Victorian Parliament.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Yes, I give you the assurance. What more do you want?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I would ask the Minister to give that assurance in clear and unequivocal terms when in due course he responds to this particular Bill. I know that he is attempting to interject while I am speaking, but what I am looking for is a clear statement, contradicting his earlier statements in this place, which indicates precisely what the Federal Government’s position is. I believe we ought to have an attitude expressed by the Government which clearly discloses where it stands on this matter with regard to State environment projects. The language of this Bill is language which would permit the Commissioners appointed under the legislation to inquire into any area of human affairs, not only the area of affairs related to the construction of projects but also areas which are not related to physical creations but are related, for example, to publications and censorship. I hope that the Minister is prepared to listen to what is being said and not to discuss other matters with his colleagues, with a view to giving some response when in due course his reply is forthcoming. The third matter to which I think attention ought to be drawn with regard to this legislation is the conflict of interests which the Bill discloses. I have said earlier that the need to protect the environment is quite clear and unchallengeable, but this Bill imposes upon individuals the right to submit to the requests of persons appointed by the Minister- who are not judicial officers but who may be anybody in the community whom the Minister appoints- to attend before them, to answer questions, to produce documents, and indeed to allow their properties and premises to be entered without any warrant whatsoever. This I believe is totally in conflict with the standards of privacy, with the standards of civil liberties which the Liberal Party stands for and which the Labor Party, when it was in opposition, was prepared to stand for.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I have agreed to accept your amendment. What are you going on about?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I know that with constant interjections the Minister desires to denigrate the points that I am making. Maybe it is only because he recognises that he has not got much of a defence to those points. But I suggest that you cannot resolve satisfactorily these environmental protection questions by simply saying that individuals can be subjected to all sorts of impositions, to coercive powers, because the environment requires that individuals must submit to those powers. It simply means, in other language, that the national interest is supreme and that the individual is subordinate to it. The Liberal Party is opposed to that sort of proposition and we hope that, in due course, an opportunity will be given to us to reverse these features of this legislation.

As I have indicated, the Opposition will give its vote in favour of the Bill but will do so with some recognition of the features of the Bill which are controversial and which we would prefer not to see in the legislation. On balance, we recognise that there are some advantages to be derived and therefore we will support the legislation. But I hope that the Minister is prepared to make some exceptions to the general authoritarian approach of his Government by giving some answers to the questions which are asked.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 3415

AUSTRALIAN HOUSING CORPORATION BILL 1974

Motion (by Senator Cavanagh)- by leaveagreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to establish an Australian Housing Corporation.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I ask for leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Copies have already been distributed to honourable senators, including Senator Carrick who will lead for the Opposition on this legislation.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)-

This Bill provides for the establishment of the Australian Housing Corporation which is being created to strengthen the Australian Government machinery to perform those housing functions for which the Australian Government has constitutional power. Inflation and the downturn in private housing activity have created special problems for which the Government needs additional and powerful administrative machinery to deal with. The purpose of creating the Australian Housing Corporation is to provide the Government with a vehicle capable of flexible and energetic initiatives which will enable these housing problems to be effectively overcome.

The Corporation will be primarily a lending institution. Within the limitations necessarily imposed by the overall demand on its financial resources the Government will from time to time make housing loans available to families and to those other specific categories of home seekers within the Australian Government’s constitutional responsibilities. These include persons living in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, families, migrants, students, Aboriginals and persons engaged in work for the Australian Government. The Corporation will have powers similar to those at present contained in the Defence Service Homes Act including the powers of construction. It will be able to provide housing assistance to persons other than eligible ex-servicemen, in much the same way as homes are provided to ex-servicemen under the Defence Service Homes Scheme. A principal and continuing concern of the Corporation will be the administration of the Defence Service Homes Act and from its commencement will direct considerable attention to this matter and will take over the functions, assets and liabilities of the Director of Defence Service Homes.

The Corporation will seek particularly to assist the lower income earner to purchase a modest home or other dwelling unit or to obtain adequate rented accommodation in cases where home ownership is not reasonably attainable or in certain circumstances not desirable. In carrying out its functions the Corporation will act within the overall objectives of the urban, social, economic and environmental policies determined by the Government. By the use of its lending power the Corporation will help in establishing desirable social inter-relationships in the urban area which will disperse rather than concentrate community groups.

I would like to make it clear that the purpose in setting up the Corporation is not with any intention of duplicating the functions carried out by State housing authorities. The amounts to be made available to the States for public housing for low income earners through their housing authorities will not be reduced in any way. The Corporation will not be a rival to State housing authorities but will be the Australian Government’s means of complementing them and the Corporation will be the Australian Government’s agent to provide housing assistance to categories of persons who do not come within the purview of the States’ own housing authorities. Where construction resources are required to give effect to new housing initiatives by the Government, the Corporation would utilise the existing resources of the Department of Housing and Construction, or by arrangement those of State Government authorities and the private sector.

The Corporation will be granted a large measure of financial autonomy. The Bill provides for the Corporation to operate the Defence Service Homes Scheme from the date the Act comes into operation. The Bill requires that all other forms of housing assistance to be provided by the Housing Corporation shall be in accordance with regulations to be made under the authority of this legislation. For example, the Corporation will have a power to acquire land, but any proposals to acquire land for a specific development purpose would need to be in accordance with regulations made for that purpose. As a matter of general policy the Corporation would not seek to compete with Government or private enterprise in land purchase and in all its actions will be concerned to keep land prices to a minimum. It would purchase land on its own account only to the extent that land requirements for its programs was not available from Land Commissions or their equivalents in the States.

The capital of the Corporation will consist of amounts paid to it by the Treasurer out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for its purposes. Initially this will be the amount of $2 5 m which has been specifically included in the Budget for the purposes of the Corporation together with those assets taken over from the Director of Defence Service Homes. The Corporation will pay interest on its capital at rates of interest to be determined by the Treasurer from time to time. The Corporation will have a high degree of financial autonomy in that repayments of all moneys to the Corporation will become available to it for its purposes. In effect in due course moneys received by the Corporation will become a self-generating revolving fund.

The Corporation will consist of 6 members, namely the Secretary to the Department of Housing and Construction, the General Manager of the Corporation and 4 other part time members. It is the intention that the Minister for Urban and Regional Development will propose one member of the Board. Approximately 1,000 officers of the Department of Housing and Construction would be transferred to the Australian Housing Corporation and most of these officers would be involved in the lending process. For the time being these officers who are members of the Australian Public Service will be loaned to the Housing Corporation by an arrangement entered into by the Corporation with the Permanent Head of the Department of Housing and Construction. Initially the rights of these officers will be fully protected because they will remain members of the Australian Public Service. However, in the normal course of events it is to be expected that these officers will be absorbed into the permanent staff structure of the Corporation.

The rights of officers to be transferred to the statutory Corporation are covered by the Officers Rights Declaration Act and although this Act does not as it stands fully protect the rights of officers in this situation the Government plans to amend the Act. Accordingly it is not intended to absorb the abovementioned staff into the Corporation until such time as the Officers Rights Declaration Act has been amended to deal more appropriately with such a situation. There is no intention of transferring technical staff in any significant number to the Corporation though, in due course, it will obtain from whatever source it can a nucleus of highly competent technical staff who can give a sound lead in housing practice.

I would reiterate that the function and purpose of the Corporation is not to duplicate the existing agencies which at present provide housing assistance in Australia. The Corporation’s main purpose is to supplement such agencies. It will provide housing for those groups of persons who are at present beyond the reach of such existing agencies. It will provide the medium through which housing loans will be made available to that large section of the community who at present are not catered for by the existing public housing authorities. The Government sees this Corporation as the instrument to assist many groups of people who fall within its constitutional responsibility but who do not have ready access to the forms of housing assistance at present available. By this means the Government will not only be able to provide homes to those persons who need them most but it will also be able to provide a needed stimulus to the home building industry at times when this is required. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Carrick) adjourned.

page 3417

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveagreed to:

That as from 5 January 1975 Senator Durack be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, and Senator Wright be appointed in his place.

page 3417

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I present the fifth report of the Publications Committee.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 3417

PUBLIC SERVICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1974

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 10 December.

Part IV- Restoration of Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance

page 3417

SCHEDULE 1

page 3417

SCHEDULE 4

page 3417

OATH

I, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Queen of Australia her heirs and successors according to law and that I will loyally as in duty bound uphold the Constitution and the laws of Australia.

page 3417

AFFIRMATION

I, do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Queen of Australia her heirs and successors according to law and that I will loyally as in duty bound uphold the Constitution and laws of Australia.

page 3417

SCHEDULE 5

page 3417

OATH

I, do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen as a member of the Appeal Board constituted under the Public Service Act 1922-19 , for the purpose of the appeal made by (here insert name of appellant) (or in the case of the Chairman or elected rpresentative of the Division to which the appellant belongs as a member of any Appeal Board constituted under the Public Service Act 1922-19 , of which I may be a member) and that I will perform the duties and exercise the powers imposed or conferred upon me as such member without fear or favour affection or ill-will.

page 3417

AFFIRMATION

I, do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign

Lady the Queen as a member of the Appeal Board constituted under the Public Service Act 1922-19 , for the purpose of the appeal made by (here insert name of appellant) (or in the case of the Chairman or elected representative of the Division to which the appellant belongs as a member of any Appeal Board constituted under the Public Service Act 1 922- 19 , of which I may be a member) and that I will perform the duties and exercise the powers imposed or conferred upon me as such member without fear or favour affection or ill-will.

page 3417

SCHEDULE 6

page 3417

OATH

I, do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen as a member of a Promations Appeal Committee constituted under the PublicService Act 1922-1974 and that I will perform the duties and exercise the powers imposed or conferred upon me as such member without fear or favour affection or ill-will.

I, do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen as a member of a Promotions Appeal Committee constituted under the Public Service Act 1922-1974 and that I will perform the duties and exercise the powers imposed or conferred upon me as such member without fear or favour affection or ill-will. ‘.

House of Representatives amendments.

Omit Part IV.

In Schedule 1, omit proposed Schedules 4, 5 and 6.

Motion (by Senator Murphy) proposed:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– As I understand it, the motion says that we should agree to the amendments that have been made by the House of Representatives. The Opposition’s view is that we should not agree to these amendments. When the Bill was originally introduced into the Senate it did not contain the oath or affirmation of allegiance to which we believe members of the Public Service should adhere. Our attitude on this matter has been well known ever since the oath or affirmation was removed from the legislation in December of last year. In this chamber we moved for the reinsertion of the oath or affirmation of allegiance and the Senate agreed to the reinsertion of the oath or affirmation when the Bill was first before us. The Bill as amended, with the oath or affirmation of allegiance contained in it, went to the House of Representatives where the Government removed the provision for the oath or affirmation of allegiance. It now asks the Senate to agree to the removal of that oath or affirmation. We do not accept that proposition. Therefore we shall vote against the motion that has been moved by the Leader of the Government Senate, Senator Murphy. I shall not repeat the arguments that were elaborated at some length on an earlier occasion because that would be taking the time of the Senate unnecessarily. I rose only to indicate the reason why we oppose Senator Murphy’s motion.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

-in reply-I think that for a number of good reasons the Senate ought to agree to the amendments that have been proposed by the House of Representatives. First of all, changes have been made in the Public Service which are reflected in the Bill which is before the Committee. Those concern certain structural arrangements and there are safeguards that ought to be made for the sake of the Public Service. These are so important that the Public Service association, the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, has asked for the safeguards to be made legislatively. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, Mr Snedden, asked the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, upon notice to carry out certain undertakings that he had given to that Association. I refer to question No. 737 in which Mr Snedden asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did he promise the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association on 3 May 1974 that he would introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Joint Council re action to protect the rights of employees suffering pecuniary loss following departmental restructuring.

The answer of Mr Whitlam was yes. The second part of that question was:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the concern of public servants at the restructuring undertaken by the Government in the absence of formal protection safeguards.

The answer by Mr Whitlam was yes. The third part was:

Will he now give an unqualified assurance that he will introduce such safeguards before any further restructuring occurs.

The answer was: Legislation containing safeguards of this kind is being prepared for introduction during the present sittings.

We have that legislation before us now. This legislation was introduced at the request of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and because of pressure by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives to introduce it. It was introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in pursuance of that undertaking. The matter of oaths is now before the Committee. By some accident an amendment relating to oaths was passed in this chamber; it was referred back to the other House where it was rejected. This Bill has now come back to the Senate. We find that contrary to the view of the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, the Opposition in the Senate wants to prevent the legislation from going through. It may be that honourable senators opposite think this is an opportunity to have their proposed provisions included in the Bill; that they have in mind an amendment which is perfect; they are saying: ‘Let us hold up what the Public Service wants; let us frustrate its wishes for months if necessary. We have produced such a beautiful amendment that it ought to be accepted by the whole Parliament’. But what is the truth of the matter? I am advised that the fact is that the Opposition’s amendment would pose significant legal and administrative problems in its present form. The proposed schedule for oath to uphold the laws of Australia differs in both form and substance from the former provision. The legal effect would seem to be that all officers and employees would need to take that oath regardless of how long they have been in the Service and regardless of whether they took the former oath or affirmation. Clauses 26 and 27 would seem to apply to persons who became officers or employees after 19 December 1973, even if they subsequently left the Service. They could be guilty of a common law misdemeanour unless they take this oath. You appreciate, Mr Temporary Chairman -

Senator Greenwood:

- Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Senator Murphy is replying now to a motion which he moved that the Senate agree to the amendments made by the House of Representatives. When he moved that motion, he did not speak to it; he simply moved it. I responded by simply stating in short form the history and not elaborating arguments. My point of order is: Is it consistent with the practices and the standards of the Senate for substantive argument to be engaged in by the mover of the motion on his reply when he has not said anything in moving the motion, therefore denying the opposite point of view to be heard? Having regard to the hour at which we are, we know that we would all like to finish the business of the Senate reasonably.

Senator MURPHY:

– May I speak to the point of order. It is true that I did not put any arguments because the arguments had been circulated. I would have thought that the arguments were so clear that Senator Greenwood would have preferred me not to explain the deficiencies in his amendment and that he would have preferred the proposal to go through on the voices. Since he has defended what seems to be an indefensible amendment, it becomes necessary for me to explain the deficiencies in it, and I am now doing it. I was not to know that the Opposition would attempt to defend what seems to be completely indefensible. Now that it has attempted to defend it, I am putting out the reasons why it ought to recant.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Devitt:

– Order! I do not uphold the point of order. I think it is quite appropriate for the Minister to address himself to the Committee in the terms that he is. I call on the Minister to complete his remarks.

Senator MURPHY:

-Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman. Apart from the awful deficiencies in the amendment, I think most honourable senators would agree that it is quite stupid. It would introduce a special oath- the Greenwood oath. Everybody in the Public Service, whether he has or has not taken the oath which previously obtained, would have to be hauled in- this is my advice- to take the new special oath proposed by Senator Greenwood. The hundreds of thousands of public servants who have hitherto taken the ordinary oath will have to take the special oath. Apart from that, there are other good reasons why it should not be done. Promises do not increase the legal obligations owed by any Australian citizen. The Public Service Act embodies sanctions against breach of legal obligations by public servants. These are contained in sections 55 and 56 of the Act. Disciplinary offences by officers, including disobeying a lawful order, disgraceful or improper conduct, breach of Act or regulations, are capable of being dealt with under the Act. Section 62 applies to criminal offences by officers and section 82 to the liability of temporary employees to dismissal. The Crimes Act also contains sanctions. Section 70 of that Act provides for a penalty of up to 2 years imprisonment for disclosure of information by Commonwealth officers. Sections 71 to 74 refer to other offences by Commonwealth officers, such as stealing property, falsification of records and corruption. Officers are already required to carry out duties in a loyal and competent fashion. For example, Regulation 32 of the Public Service Regulations contains the following provisions:

Every officer shall-

during the hours of official business devote himself exclusively and zealously to the discharge of his public duties;

behave at all times with courtesy to the public, giving prompt attention to all reasonable requirements;

obey promptly all instructions given to him by any officer under whose control or supervision he is placed;

promptly and correctly carry out all duties appertaining to his office, or any other duty he is directed to perform; and

in due course and at proper times comply with, and give effect to, all enactments, regulations, and authoritative instructions made or issued for his guidance in the performance of his duties.

There are also other provisions. It is unfortunate that an attempt should be made to tack on to a Bill this badly drafted amendment. If the Opposition feels that it needs to go ahead with this amendment, there is no reason why it cannot attempt to do so next year- just as it has this year- and let it do it in a proper and workmanlike fashion. But it has put forward an amendment which is inapt for the purpose it seeks and which would cause all sorts of administrative inconvenience. I respectfully suggest that the Senate should agree to the amendments which have been made by the House of Representatives.

Question put:

That the amendments proposed by the House of Representatives be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator D. M. Devitt)

AYES: 25

NOES: 25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

Motion (by Senator Greenwood) agreed to:

That Senators Withers, Drake-Brockman and Greenwood be appointed a committee to draw up reasons for the Senate disagreeing to the amendments made by the House of Representatives in the Bill.

page 3420

WOOL INDUSTRY BILL (No. 2) 1974

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 10 December.

Senate’s amendments:

Senate ‘s amendment No. 1 -

Leave out clause 5.

Senate’s amendment No. 2-

Leave out clause 8.

Clause 9.

After section 20 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: 20a. ( 1 ) Before taking any action that could reasonably be expected to affect the conditions of employment, or the demand for labour, in the wool industry, the Corporation shall consult with, and have regard to the views of, the appropriate trade union organizations.

The Minister may give to the Corporation such directions in writing as he thinks necessary in connexion with the performance of the duty of the Corporation under subsection ( 1 ). ‘.

Senate’s amendment No. 3-

At end of proposed sub-section 20a ( 1 ), add ‘and appropriate employer groups ‘.

Senate’s amendment No. 4-

Leave out proposed sub-section a. (2 ).

Clause 12.

After section 39 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: 39a. Without limiting the functions of the Corporation under section 38, the functions of the Corporation include, to such extent as the Minister approves, trading in wool and wool products, acquiring and supplying wool for the purposes of programs of and by Australia to other countries, and manufacturing, or arranging for the manufacture, of wool products.’.

Senate’s amendment No. 5-

Leave out ‘ acquiring and ‘.

Senate’s amendment No. 6-

Leave out ‘and manufacturing,’.

Clause 13.

Section 40 of the Principal Act is amended-

by omitting all the words preceding paragraph (e) and substituting the following words:

Without limiting the generality of sub-section (4) of section 20, the powers of the Corporation for the purposes of the performance of its functions include power to-

insert and appraise wool presented for sale at auction;

buy and sell wool at auction or otherwise, export wool and enter into transactions in relation to the buying and selling of wool, including transactions by way of wool futures contracts;

Senate’s amendment No. 7-

In paragraph (c) of proposed section 40, line 38, leave out process, or’.

Senate’s amendment No. 8-

Leave out clause 1 8.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– Firstly, on behalf of the Opposition I would like to say that we deplore the handling of this Bill by the House of Representatives. We all know that the wool industry is Australia’s most important industry and at this stage it is going through difficulties. In the main, the Opposition supports the additional powers which are proposed for the Wool Corporation. This Bill was sent across to the Senate from the House of Representatives on Thursday last week. We did not receive the Bill until 8 o’clock at night some 2 hours after the House of Representatives was due to rise. We had to debate the Bill immediately. It went back to the House of Representatives and without due consideration being given to it the House of Representatives sent the Bill back to us in its present form. I believe that had the House of Representatives been prepared to concern itself with this legislation much earlier in the session and had given us more time to consider it we possibly could have come to some agreement with the Government.

There are 2 main areas in which the Opposition and the industry have expressed concern. One concerns the reconstitution of the Corporation. There is a feeling throughout the inductry and amongst members of the Opposition that the interests of the growers would be jeopardised to a certain extent by this legislation. The legislation provides for the appointment of a member with special qualifications. The Opposition would like to know what special qualifications are necessary. Had we had time to discuss this with the Minister we possibly could have been satisfied with what the Minister had in mind. In the interim since last Thursday I have been able to discuss these matters. We have been able to raise our particular concern with the Minister. I would hope that at this stage the Minister will give us some assurance of what he has in mind. It is important that the Wool Corporation should retain the confidence of all sections of the industry which is going through difficult times. If the Minister can do this I am quite satisfied that we would be happy to accept the legislation.

The other important area concerned proposed new section 20a (1) and 20a(2). We ask that not only should trade unions be consulted in the new avenues in which the Corporation is embarking but also that employer groups should be included. We also feel that there is a danger of ministerial direction in respect of industrial matters. We wanted to find out whether this direction applied only to the supply and management section of the Corporation’s new powers and the future operations of the Corporation in that area because when one talks about the wool industry one covers a pretty wide field. Many people are concerned that there may be ministerial direction in respect of arbitration decisions made way back at the grass roots concerning shearers awards and station hands awards. At this stage I ask the Minister whether he can give the Opposition some assurance in relation to those areas. If he can, we will decide what we do from that point on.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– This is the second time in 2 days that we have had to consider under duress legislation of a most important nature. Apparently if those who lobby have their way, the Senate is to be prevented from continuing the presentation of its views concerning desirable amendments because of the timetable which presents us with an accomplished fact that the Bill will not be operative until about March if we do not agree to the amendments made to the Bill in the House of Representatives. This is an atrocious state of affairs. For 2 days straight we have had before us matters of great ideological importance which this House cannot fully and properly debate. I will not accept these amendments nor do I believe that anyone in the Opposition ought to accept them either. It is rather interesting that yesterday the teachers organisation said, in effect, that we might be right about States’ powers but the money involved was so important to them that they wanted us to allow the subjugation of the States to be put into legislation concerning grants and assistance for technical education in Australia.

Now, because the wool industry and the wool producers want this legislation they are saying, in effect, to member of Parliament, that we should allow matters of a highly ideological nature and a socialistic approach to private free enterprise to be included in the Bill, because they want, their organisation established before next March. If Australia is to be governed according to that standard, it does not matter who is in government, does it? This side is acquiescing. This is the weakest performance I have seen by any Opposition in my time in regard to matters of great ideological note. The Opposition is letting into Bills things that it does not want simply because of the time factor and the shortsighted attitude of producer organisations in relation to this matter.

Senator Webster:

– You are being harsh.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I am not being harsh. I have heard it said all too often, and as one of the farming and agricultural community I know it is all too true, that we are so anti-socialist until we want our own way. Let it not come back against this side of the Parliament in future years if something emanates from this Bill which the primary producing community does not want. Let primary industry not complain if it suddenly finds itself being taken over in an area which is does not want taken over by a government which believes all things should be done centrally and by government itself. Let not primary industry protest because its representatives at this time are saying: ‘Accept this Bill for the sake of 2 months ‘. It is very wrong in every way.

I say in all kindliness to my Country Party colleagues here that obviously they went too far in this House as to what was attainable by way of amendment. When one is viewing a piece of Government legislation which involves heavy financial support from the Government- the Government has received the congratulations of the House for that part of its actions in regard to the wool industry, which is a major part of its actions- and when a huge sum of money may be available on commercial terms from the Government, or by Government auspices, that was not available otherwise, it is not reasonable to expect the Government not to have some very large measure of say in the constitution of the Australian Wool Corporation. We went through that matter before. I say in all kindliness to my colleagues of the Country Party that in tampering with the base of the Bill in that regard they wanted more than they could possibly get. Therefore they have jeopardised the proper amendments they tried to get of a detailed but most important nature to them. They have lost their amendments because of their too active attitude to the Bill. I appreciated their support when the amendments went through- they did not sponsor the amendments but they supported them- but now they have in this Bill power given to the Corporation to manufacture and to process in its own name and with its own plant. Who on this side of the House wants that? Yet who on this side of the House will oppose it tonight?

Senator Webster:

– Do you criticise yourself for your own amendments? Apparently you do.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Without committing the Minister I say that I believe the Minister would have accepted these amendments.

Senator Webster:

– On what basis do you say that?

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I say that as a result of consultation with the Minister. He made no promises to me; I just got the feeling that the Government would have accepted everything except what was done in relation to clause 5.

Senator McLaren:

– And that was a funny feeling.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– It might have been a funny feeling. I do not want to commit the Minister in that way. I said it is a feeling I had about it. Therefore we have a Bill which gives greatly extended powers- far more than the Corporation needs- in regard to operating in its own right, as Senator Maunsell said, in one of the greatest industries in this country. The marketing of wool is a most complex matter and is not to be attacked on the processing side simply because we would like to employ processors and generate processing plants in Australia. It is a most complex matter for those outside Australia who buy our wool and who want to process it themselves. We cannot have adventurers who take on the marketing and processing and manufacture of wool simply because they want to build up an industry, perhaps regardless of the overseas market of the wool itself.

I intend to persist in my vote even though it is one vote among sixty. I will oppose the clauses which I opposed and amended here before. But I would say this: The Minister has put his proposition in a blanket form and if we are to express our opinion fully and properly- I do not disagree with his disagreement to the amendments to clause 5-1 must say that as one vote, and the only one I suppose, that will disagree with him I will be put in a somewhat foolish position of having to oppose his view on clause 5, which I agree with, because of my own amendments. It is a pretty moot point because I will be only one vote. But I want to say in words that I do not oppose in the way I vote the Minister’s intention in relation to clause 5 of this Bill. But I regret very much the circumstances which have put us in this chamber in the position, apparently under the drift of the answer given by e.ator Maunsell, where we cannot express th*i opinion which I believe we would express if the House of Representatives were sitting. Under that protest, I will disagree with the Minister’s proposal, exempting clause 5 from my remarks.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– The Senate is dealing again with the Wool Industry Bill. The points of disagreement which existed when the Bill was before the Senate last week can be narrowed down to three or four. It is true, as Senator Hall has pointed out, that there have been differences of viewpoint both between him and the Opposition and between the Opposition and the Government. But we all realise that the industry with which we are dealing is a $ 1,000m industry to Australia and the bulk of its value is in export earnings. It is always a problem for the balance of payments position in Australia when the wool industry takes plunge. The whole purpose of this legislation is to strengthen the wool industry and in particular to strengthen the powers and the functions of the Australian Wool Corporation. The composition of the Corporation up to now was established under legislation enacted in 1972, before this Government came to office. At that time it was recognised by the previous Government that the best personnel possible ought to be on that Corporation.

I should like briefly to go back to the second reading speech of 27 October 1970 on the Australian Wool Commission Bill in which the Minister of the day said words which I think are equally applicable to what we are considering tonight. He said:

In view of the nature of the functions of the Commission, it is considered that the main emphasis should be placed on commercial and technical skills. I am sure that it will be agreed that every endeavour must be made to secure for the Commission men of the highest expertise and ability.

As has been said, because of the very great government financial involvement now in the wool industry- to the extent, when this legislation is passed, of $350m- it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that the people who are on the Corporation and the powers and functions of the Corporation are commensurate with the responsibility the Government has taken.

I do not want to engage in any political support of the Government’s decision to support the market floor price because that matter has been discussed on many occasions; so I will confine my remarks to the particular points of disagreement which were raised when the Bill was in the Senate last week. The new Corporation will have the same number of grower members- 4 membersas it had under the old legislation. The Australian Wool Industry Conference has submitted to me a list of 8 names from which four will be appointed as members. I believe from my discussions with the executive of the AWIC that it has gone about this in a responsible manner. The people whose names have been submitted to me are representative of the industry and are the best available for the AWIC to nominate for these positions. I am quite happy with the names which have been placed before me. I believe that from those 8 names we will get 4 competent grower representatives who will be able to make a positive contribution to the work of the Corporation. There will be an increase of one in the number of special appointees and, in consultation with the AWIC, I shall be making a final decision on that, I hope, next week.

Let me assure the Senate that I shall be adopting exactly the same principle as that enunciated by my predecessor in 1970 under the previous Government. The 4 persons appointed will be persons who are competent and who will do the best they possibly can for this industry. They will be people- I must not say ‘men’- with commercial experience. It was, of course, this Government which took the step last year of appointing a woman to the Wool Corporation, and a most competent member she has turned out to be. I can assure the Senate that the only basis on which these appointments will be made will be the capacity of these people- their commercial and marketing ability- to ensure the best possible effort on behalf of the wool industry. Senator Maunsell also referred to the amendments which had previously been moved concerning the inclusion of employer groups. Clause 9 requires the Corporation to negotiate with trade unions and sets out the power of direction of the Minister in industrial matters. I have given this matter a great deal of thought and in the last few days I have given further consideration to it, and I am quite prepared to review both of these provisions- they are part of the same clause- in the new year. There is not a great deal of difference of viewpoint here between the Government and the Opposition. The clause states that the Corporation shall consult with trade unions and I am quite sure that this is a matter which should not create any great concern.

With regard to the question raised by Senator Hall about processing and manufacturing, it is implicit in the wool marketing report of the Corporation that the Corporation should have the powers granted in the Bill. If a government is to establish any statutory body which must engage in commercial activity in competition with other commercial enterprises, it should give it the same liberties to operate in the market as a private enterprise organisation. It should not be expected to operate in a highly competitive market with virtually one hand tied behind its back. I can assure Senator Hall and other honourable senators that this body will be operating as a commercial enterprise. This Government does not pursue a policy of interfering with the normal commercial day to day decisions of such bodies. If we have competent people whom we know do know the market and do know the industry, there is no need for a government to interfere in their normal commercial operations. Naturally, the financial implications do require certain powers of direction which were recognised by our predecessors- just as they are recognised by this Government.

Without delaying the Senate any further, I do hope that what I have said will be of sufficient assurance to the Senate and to the industry that the Government’s intentions in this matter are beyond reproach. Time will prove that they are beyond reproach. As a result of the legislation that we are putting through tonight- at least I hope we will be putting it through the Senate- we will see a strengthened wool industry in the future in this country, an industry which will continue to play a major role in the economy of Australia and in particular in our export earnings. I suggest we put the question to the vote.

Senator Steele Hall:

– Can I ask that the amendments be put separately?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Devitt:

– Yes. That is in order. The question is:

That the Committee does not insist on amendment No. I disagreed to by the House of Representatives.

Those in favour say aye, to the contrary no. The ayes have it. The question is:

That the Committee does not insist on amendment No. 2 disagreed to by the House of Representatives.

Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. The ayes have it. The question is:

That the Committee does not insist on amendment No. 3 disagreed to by the House of Representatives.

Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no.

Senator Steele Hall:
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-The ayes have it. The question now is:

That the Committee does not insist on amendment No. 4 disagreed to by the House of Representatives.

Those in favour say aye, to the contrary no. The ayes have it. The question is:

That the Committee does not insist on amendment No. 5 disagreed to by the House of Representatives.

Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no.

Senator Steele Hall:
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-The ayes have it. The question is:

That the Committee does not insist on amendment No. 6 disagreed to by the House of Representatives.

Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no.

Senator Steele Hall:
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The ayes have it. The question is:

That the Committee does not insist on amendment No. 7 disagreed to by the House of Representatives.

Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no.

Senator Steele Hall:
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The ayes have it. The question is:

That the Committee does not insist on amendment No. 8 disagreed to by the House of Representives.

Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. The ayes have it.

Senator Steele Hall:

- Mr Temporary Chairman, may I have my vote recorded because no one else voted as I did on these amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-Would you be good enough, Senator Hall, to identify the particular amendments with which you disagreed?

Senator Steele Hall:

– Yes. They were amendments Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7.

Resolution reported; reported adopted.

page 3424

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the honorable Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson requesting to be discharged from the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory.

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveagreed to:

That Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson be discharged from attendence on the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory.

page 3424

EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT GRANTS BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 December, on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– The Opposition supports the Export Market Development Grants Bill 1974. 1 do not propose to take up very much of the time of the Senate in saying why we do so. The fact is that the subject matter of this Bill- that is, the whole principle of export incentives, assistance and encouragement of one sort or another- was pioneered by the Liberal-Country Party Government many years ago. A week ago in this Senate we passed a Bill which replaced a scheme for the insurance and guarantee of export payments and which widened that scheme. The title of that Bill was the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Bill. On that occasion I was able, on behalf of the Opposition, to welcome an improvement in the scheme for the insurance and guarantee of export payments which had been implemented during the term of the Liberal-Country Party Government.

However, on this occasion I am bound to say that the scheme contained in this Bill, which is for the payment of grants for export market development, is not an improvement on the scheme contained in legislation which was pioneered, implemented and carried on for many years by the Liberal-Country Party Government. That scheme of export incentives, as it was known, was a very notable scheme in this whole field of encouraging Australian exports, particularly exports of manufatured goods. It is said that that scheme was open to some abuse, that it was costing about $100m a year, that certan excessive benefits were being given to the larger companies and larger exporters and so on. When the present Government came into office it indicated that it was going to bring in a scheme of its own, and that is what this Bill does.

The Opposition takes the view that if there were certain abuses in the old scheme- I think they would have been relatively minor abusesthey could have been rectified by amendments to the legislation; that there was no occastion for the Government to abandon the old scheme and to bring in a scheme of its own. Under the scheme contained in this Bill, payments for export encouragement and incentives for the development of new markets and the expension of old markets have been greatly reduced in their scope. As I said, the old scheme had been providing sums of up to $ 100m a year. The new scheme is estimated to cost about $2 7m a year, although, as I undertand it, payments will be in the form of grants and will be taxable. So, at the rates of company taxation, it may well cost a good deal less. It is apparent that the actual incentives provided by this scheme will not be nearly as great as those provided under the scheme of the Liberal-Country Party Government. When we are returned to government we will look at this scheme again very closely to determine whether we cannot improve upon it and upgrade the incentives which it contains.

I do not propose to go through the actual details of the scheme. They have been set out in the second reading speech of the Minister for

Agriculture (Senator Wriedt). I think the major objections and criticisms which can be levelled at this Labor scheme are in relation to the very considerable limitations that are placed upon the grants which can be made for expenditure on market development.

Despite the provision that grants will be payable on eligible export market development expenditure in respect of any goods, there will be a ceiling payment on this form of grant. It limits amounts in any one year to $100,000 or 10 per cent of export earnings. This limitation will not apply in certain circumstances, but there is no real exception to the overall ceiling of $ 100,000 except in relation to eligible expenditure incurred on Australian Government sponsored trade promotions. However, companies do not always wish to participate in this type of scheme, but the only way in which they can claim reimbursement of expenditure above the ceiling of $100,000 is to take part in this scheme and then they can only get an additional amount of up to $25,000 in respect of eligible expenditure on Government trade promotions.

I think one of the major deficiencies of this scheme is the discouragement on the expenditure of money in developing an existing market. Under this Bill grants will be available in the form of reimbursement for money spent on market development at 2 rates. If the money is spent on the development of a new market it will attract a reimbursement rate of 85 per cent within the total ceiling payments which I have mentioned. However, if the money is spent on the development or expansion of an existing market the rate of reimbursement will be only 60 per cent of eligible expenditure. It is quite clear that as far as Australia’s interests are concerned it is just as valuable- in fact it may be even more valuable- to expand an existing market rather than simply to develop a new market. Therefore it seems rather strange that there should be this discrimination against those who are actually developing or expanding an existing market. As I said, in order to attract the maximum grant- the rate of 85 per cent- they have to be developing a new market.

The overall ceiling of $100,000, to which I have referred, is of course a discrimination against the larger operators in this area. Although it may be a very worthy cause to provide out of a limited cake more money for the small exporter- certainly he needs all the encouragement and assistance he can be given- it is foolish simply because the Government may have some sort of prejudice against the larger exporter not to give that exporter encouragement to expand or develop new markets. Bearing in mind the size of the firms operating in this field an amount of $100,000 for this purpose may be in fact a small proportion of total expenditure in this field. However, there is some extension of the scheme of which I should make mention and for which I should give credit. That is that in future statutory marketing corporations which were not eligible under the old scheme will be eligible for assistance under this scheme. That is of course, to be commended.

In summary, the Opposition is thankful for small mercies. I suppose that the Australian manufacturers and exporters are thankful as well. At one stage we may all have had some fears as to whether the Government would have continued this type of scheme at all. As I have said, it is doing so in the shape of the scheme contained in this Bill. It is a reduced scheme from the one which operated under the Liberal-Country Party Government. The benefits are certainly less. When the Opposition is returned to power it will certainly look at the scheme again with a view to expanding it and making it as good a scheme as it has been in the past.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– in reply- The Government appreciates the fact that basically the Opposition is not opposing the Bill. It is necessary for me to say very briefly that the whole purpose of the legislation is to achieve a more equitable spread of the benefits. I think it should be made clear that under the old scheme the benefits which applied were grossly inequitable. Let me give to the Senate a few figures. Under the old scheme- the market development assistance scheme- 1 per cent of recipients received more than 50 per cent of the benefits. Under the export incentive grants scheme 2 per cent of recipients receive more than 50 per cent of the benefits. That indicates the degree to which large firms were receiving the overwhelming bulk of the benefits.

The purpose of this legislation is to help the smaller firm and the middle sized firm, to encourage them and induce them to go into the export .field and, in particular, into new exports. The big firms are generally big enough, with sufficient resources, to carry their own development costs. I am sure that we will see more benefit even though there is less money involved at this stage. It will be spread much more effectively amongst a greater number of small and middle sized firms. I appreciate the fact that Senator Durack recognises that the legislation will now involve other organisations such as cooperatives which were precluded under the previous scheme. The other main point he dealt with concerned the variant market premium rates. In the case of new markets there is an 85 per cent limit and in the case of established markets the limit is 60 per cent. It is necessary to have the differentiation because the whole thrust of this legislation is to establish new markets, to encourage people who are not exporters into those new markets and also to encourage established exporters into new markets. It is very important that, if we are to use public moneys for this purpose, we spread them as effectively as we possibly can. It would of course be desirable if we could have the best of both worlds and give everybody everything they wanted, irrespective of size and irrespective of purpose. That would involve an enormous burden on the public purse. Therefore, as every government recognises, those moneys that are expended have to be put to the best use.

I would like to say a lot more but unfortunately time is running out on us tonight. In view of the other legislation to be dealt with it will be necessary for me to conclude my remarks by saying that I am sure that this legislation will find wide acceptance throughout the manufacturing industry in Australia. It should be said that Dr Cairns went to great pains to sound out the views and the feelings of the manufacturers of Australia who were engaged or likely to be engaged in exporting. He did everything he possibly could to alter the legislation before it was finally brought before the Parliament, to ensure that the needs and the desires of the manufacturing sector of the economy were properly accounted for. As a result, I believe that we have before the Senate good legislation which can only be of benefit to the exporting industries of this country.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3426

STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT (LOAN GUARANTEES) BILL 1974

Second reading

Debate resumed from 10 December on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– The Opposition supports this measure but seeks to amend the limitations on its time. The purpose of the Bill is to authorise the Government to guarantee loans to firms to facilitate their structural adjustment from one industry, which is in difficulties as a result of government policy measures, to some other sphere of operations. The other sphere of operations is not stated. Apart from generalities referring to the Industries Assistance Commission no specific answers are contained in the second reading speech by the Minister for Agriclture (Senator Wriedt) who represents the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby) in this chamber, and no references were made in the debate by the Minister that would lead to any further enlightenment on that matter.

It has to be admitted that a great part of the troubles of manufacturing industry in this country has come out of the unilateral decision to change the tariff structure by 25 per cent across the board. That broad sweep approach has not worked out as being satisfactory. There is also available- some people have had time to catalogue these things accurately- a recital of the Government’s changes in economic policy and in currency values. All of this leads to a great state of uncertainty in the manufacturing industry which might well be described, and has been described, as a state of confusion and a crisis of confidence. This in tura has led to a rundown in investment and activity and a general state of fairly massive uncertainty.

The general position of structural assistance in industry was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) as new policy on 23 April 1974, about Vh months ago. There has been a fair amount of time to consider the method, style and approach. The heart of the problem really is clause 7 of the Bill which relates to ministerial direction. The clause states that the Minister shall not guarantee a loan unless he is satisfied on 3 conditions. The first is that he must be satisfied that as a result of the policy measures a significant and distinct part of a firm’s assets has been rendered incapable of economic use. The second condition is that he must be satisfied that the firm in which the loan moneys will be employed has taken all reasonable steps to adjust itself to that situation. The third condition is that he must be satisfied that the manner in which the lean moneys are to be employed is consistent with the national interest in relation to the use of resources. It is not clear what this means. A conflict exists between the Government and its advisers in many cases, in particular with the IAC. Dramatic changes have been made to the policy and constructions of the IAC in regard to the national interests, by the Government, the Cabinet and Caucus. Such a case as the motor vehicle industry is notable.

The Department of Manufacturing Industry has issued a survey, Bulletin No. 12, dated November 1 974, of manufacturing activity. I will refer to it briefly because the exigencies of time. It states:

The survey of manufacturing activity, carried out by the Department of Manufacturing Industry in October and November, indicated that the overall level of demand for Australian manufactured goods had declined considerably in the September quarter 1974.

Further on it states:

A significant decline in orders was recorded.

Still further on states:

In the 6 months to March 1 973–

That is, thinking forward - respondents expected a continuing decline in demand with sales moving still further below their normal level. Employment and overtime were expected to fall again to levels very much below what is considered normal. There was a slight decline expected in capacity utilisation.

Manufacturers indicated their intention to reduce their stocks of both raw materials and finished goods to levels only slightly above normal. Further large increases in both costs and prices were expected.

That is the unhappy state of manufacturing industry after 2 years of this Government, as recorded by the Department of Manufacturing Industry itself in respondent queries and answers, and discussions with industry. So it is a very distressing position for manufacturing industry. It has to be admitted that this has been brought about largely by confusion about Government actions. But that is the fact. The Government has therefore proposed this structural adjustment plan which, as I have said, has been introduced some 7½ months after it was first indicated. We feel, looking at the matter as a responsible Opposition, that there is a very heavy strain on the Minister for Manufacturing Industry to determine the facts under clause 7(1 )(c) of the Bill which prescribes that ‘the manner in which loan moneys are to be employed is consistent with the national interest in relation to the use of resources’. Then clause 8( 1 ) provides:

The Minister shall not give more than one guarantee in respect of any one firm in relation to any one prescribed adjustment situation and for that purpose shall, unless he is satisfied that there are special circumstances that make it unreasonable to do so, treat firms that are associated with one another as one firm.

What are the special circumstances, and how does the Minister determine them? It is a dreadful problem to put upon the Minister’s shoulders. The IAC, which is the Government agency for these purposes normally, is surely better able to determine these areas than is the Minister himself. I should imagine that it would be safer for him, and also it would be much wiser. The Minister himself in his second reading speech has stated that it will take time to set up the Structural Adjustment Board. He said:

There is a need to give the whole program a more defined and permanent form through legislation to establish the Structural Adjustment Board. This will take time to prepare -

After all, this was announced 7V4 months ago - but there is, in the meantime, a particular requirement for legislative authority within which those guarantees may be provided as part of the program.

The real reason for the introduction of this measure at the moment is the urgency of the situation and the critical nature of the positions of many manufacturers brought about by a series of lather strange and peculiar unco-ordinated Government actions. That is the particular reason. The Minister himself has stated that there is a need for a better device in the form of a carefully considered Structural Adjustment Board. We in the Opposition agree with that approach.

There is a great deal more in the second reading speech. It refers to the quantum of the guarantee and how some of the points are to be determined. But I think the facts have been sufficiently dealt with for me to say that we believe that in all the circumstances, having regard to the Minister’s own speech and to the lapse of time from the first announcement concerning this matter, it would be reasonable to say to the Government that it would be wise both for the Parliament and for the Government to fix the time limit in which this Bill would expire as a Bill, as a temporary measure, as June of next year in order to allow the Government time to bring forward a measure that the Government itself has described as the one it wants for a carefully considered Structural Adjustment Board. That is what the Opposition proposes. At the Committee stage I propose to move the following amendment:

Page 1, clause 2 at end of clause, add the following new sub-clause:

This Act shall not remain in force after 30 June 1975, and shall be deemed to have been repealed on that day by an Act other than this Act. ‘.

I realise it is impossible to say that more time might be desirable and maybe a further extension of time could be considered. But having regard to the fact that it is an urgent situation and that it has been with us for quite some time- the matter was first elucidated by the Prime Minister in April of this year- we believe it is reasonable to say that it would be better and more sensible to get to work immediately and come back with a more carefully considered Structural Adjustment Board to which we, of course, would give generous and warm support. I think it would be wise both for the Government and for all of us if that were done. If the amendment is not approved by the Government- it was not approved in the other place so I imagine it will have its problems here- and if it is defeated then the Opposition, as a responsible Opposition, will be watching the progress of this operation with extreme care. We feel that it has dangers. We feel that it puts too much on the shoulders of the Minister. We feel that it is open to misinterpretation and perhaps, in some cases, to discrimination. In our view all of these things are dangerous in this kind of legislation. We would like to see the Board more independent. I shall not say any more. The amendment has been circulated. We shall move it in due course.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– in reply- The purpose of the Structural Adjustment (Loan Guarantees) Bill is to assist firms which have been disadvantaged or require to change the nature of their operations as a result of policies which have been taken by the present Government. The 25 per cent reduction in tariff last year was a significant factor. Quite apart from that reduction, the Government desires to see in Australia the most efficient industries that we can possibly have. We know that in all respects, through sheer size, we cannot have industries as efficient as so many of them are overseas; not only from the size point of view but also from the point of view of the high cost of operation, especially labour costs, which obtain in this country. Nevertheless it was important that this Government take the steps it has taken. It has embarked on a course designed not only for efficiency in industry but also to allow the consumer of Australia to realise the maximum benefits both from Australian industry and from the imported product. I hoped that Senator Cotton might have indicated to the Senate, as he is the spokesman for the Opposition on manufacturing industry, the Opposition ‘s policy in respect of tariffs and whether the Opposition, as a government, would reintroduce the tariffs which have been lowered.

Senator Cotton:

– I was trying to have a short debate. I hope the Minister has the same aim in view.

Senator WRIEDT:

– Yes, I assure the honourable senator that I have. That was an observation on which I hoped the honourable senator would indicate his view. No doubt next year we will have plenty of time to determine that. Senator Cotton referred to clause 7 and itemised subclause (1) paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). It seems perfectly reasonable that these provisions should be written into the Bill. They require certain standards or qualifications which a firm must meet before the Minister can give a guarantee under the Act. I feel it is only reasonable that those qualifications should be there. The provision about which Senator Cotton appeared to be more concerned was, if I recall correctly, clause 8.

Senator Cotton:

– It was really clause 7 ( 1 ) (c).

Senator WRIEDT:

-I think the same applies to clause 7( 1 ) (a) and (b) where necessary. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that industries receive these moneys and that the changes which necessarily are involved can be implemented. The amendment seeks to have this legislation remain in force only until 30 June 1975. But I think it is fair to say that no government could accept the attitude expressed in the amendment which automatically seeks to take control of this measure out of the hands of the Government. As has been pointed out in my second reading speech, the Structural Adjustment Board eventually will be created. It is true that some months have elapsed since the announcement of the Board ‘s creation, but this type of machinery is complex and it cannot be created quickly. I believe that the Minister and the Government are wise in ensuring that the structure and composition of that Board are given careful consideration. Obviously, there would be a complete breakdown of this assistance to industry as proposed by the Opposition’s amendment if it were to be accepted. It sets a deadline for 30 June 1975. It may be that the Structural Adjustment Board would not then be ready for full operation. I do not believe the Senate should accept that position. It may be that this legislation will be required to operate for some short while after that date. It is not practical to believe that we could put a deadline on its operation and possibly be without the machinery which would be necessary. I will ask the Senate to reject the amendment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I refer to clause 2 which reads as follows:

This Act shall come into operaton on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.

I have circulated a copy of an amendment which will appear at the end of clause 2. 1 move:

At end of clause, add the following new sub-clause:

This Act shall not remain in force after 30 June 1975, and shall be deemed to have been repealed on that day by an Act other than this Act. ‘.

I think I explained in my second reading speech why we think this amendment would be adequate and wise.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South Australialeader of the Liberal Movement

– It would seem to me that the amendment of the Opposition seeking to place a time limit on this legislation has some merit, in that it hopes thereby to to induce the Government to come forward with the better machinery which has been discussed in the second reading debate. But I cannot imagine that 30 June next year would be a sensible time. This allows only 6 months for the capacity of the Government to be enlarged to enter into these guarantees. Secondly there is every possibility that there will be some disturbance in Australian politics in mid next year which may very well leave a gap in any legislative ability. I am not forecasting anything; I am only saying what others have said to the newspapers.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You are not a clairvoyant.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-No. I do not think there would be one honourable senator who would not admit that possibility. So it would seem to me that there could be a gap in the legislative capacity of the Australian Parliament at about this time when the period for operation of this legislation would cut off, according to the Opposition’s amendment. I do not think it is reasonable administratively to expect the Government or industry to be faced with that hiatus in the implementation of these guarantees. I would support an amendment limiting the time to 31 December of next year if the Opposition wanted to do that. Otherwise, I will vote against this amendment. I will not try to amend the Opposition ‘s amendment. If the Opposition cares to do that, that is its business. I tell Senator Cotton that I would support an amendment for the extension of time of the legislation to be until the end of next year. But I believe that the short term extension is administratively unreasonable.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator D. M. Devitt)

AYES: 23

NOES: 23

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3429

ACADEMIC SALARIES TRIBUNAL 1974 REVIEW

Senator WILLESEE:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Western Australia · ALP

– by leave- Pursuant to sub-section 12D (5) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973-1974, I table the Academic Salaries Tribunal 1974 Review. This is the first review made by the Academic Salaries Tribunal, which was established on 16 October 1974. It provides for the first adjustment of academic salaries since 1 January 1973 apart from the flow on of national wage case decisions. The Academic Salaries Tribunal is empowered to determine salaries to be paid to academics in the Territories. For institutions in the States its function is to recommend salary levels to be used as a basis for making grants to the States for recurrent expenditure in institutions of tertiary education. As well as requiring that copies of determinations or reports by the Tribunal be tabled the Act provides that either House of the Parliament may, within 15 sitting days of a copy of a determination being laid before it, pass a resolution disapproving of that determination.

The Tribunal’s 1974 Review was received by the Government today and it has been tabled immediately to enable adjustments to academic salaries to be put into effect with a minimum of delay. The Tribunal’s determination is effective from 16 October 1974 and it has proposed that all academic salaries be adjusted from that date. To provide funds for these recommended salary levels to be paid to academics in the States, it is necessary to amend States Grants legislation in respect of universities and colleges of advanced education. The Government proposes to introduce this amending legislation in the autumn session. Printed copies of the Review will not become available until the end of this week. However, a few copies are now available for perusal in the Senate Records Office. The Government wishes to record its appreciation to Mr Justice Campbell who constitutes the singlemember Academic Salaries Tribunal for his early attention to this Review, having completed it in less than 2 months after the establishment of the Tribunal. I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 3430

QUESTION

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

, introduced by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack. I asked whether he could give some indication whether this Bill was likely to be brought on for debate. Its subject matter is part and parcel of the statement just put down by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) in that it relates to a report by the Remuneration Tribunal. Will we deal with Remuneration Bill (No. 2) 1974 [No. 2] tonight?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media and Manager of Government Business in the Senate · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave- In view of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) I move:

That intervening business be postponed until after consideration of order of the day No. 18, Remuneration Bill (No. 2) 1974 [No. 2] standing in the name of Senator Sir Magnus Cormack.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3430

REMUNERATION BILL (No. 2) 1974 [No. 2]

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– My remarks on this Bill will be very brief because I think everybody knows the history of it. A report by the Remuneration Tribunal was brought down. That report was rejected by this Senate after it had been passed in the other House. That report contained proposals to increase the salaries of a large group of people including statutory officers, members of the judiciary and members of Parliament. That report, I repeat, was rejected.

Following that action, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack introduced a Bill relating to one named office holder. His Bill proposed in other words to give the benefits recommended by the Remuneration Tribunal to that one office holder. I notice in reading the debates following my return from my recent overseas visit that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack subsequently withdrew that Bill, Remuneration Bill (No. 2) 1974 and introduced the Bill presently before the Senate, including in it some other office holders to which the report referred, namely, the statutory officers. The Government opposes the Bill. At the time, as honourable senators know, because of the report we supported it so that the whole matter could go through. It was not carried. Now that report is being truncated by this Bill which does not cover everybody. In the first place one name was picked out of the report. I merely content myself with saying that we will vote against the Bill.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– I am surprised that the Government rejects out of hand this Bill which has been introduced by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack and which provides that certain salary increases which we disapproved on 25 July 1974 be brought into effect from the time that the Bill receives royal assent. I remind the Senate that we took a serious step in July of this year. I honestly believe we felt that we had a duty to put up ourselves and other people in high office as an example. We made an example of a small section of the community, but we made people in high office with great responsibility, if I may use the expression, the guinea pigs of salary rises in an economy that looked to be going the wrong way. The Government decided that the measure would not become law. Only history will relate- I believe even historians will differ- whether the action taken by the Opposition Parties was wise or correct and whether the decision of the Government not to go on with any aspect of that legislation was right.

It will be agreed by all that because of the action that was taken a number of families have been disadvantaged. Because one tribunal made findings for the upper echelons that were not acceptable and because in the time since that happened other wage fixing authorities have increased the salaries of junior officers in line with inflation, many amazing anomalies exist between statutory officers and their staffs. I believe all honourable senators and people who take an interest in economics and the welfare of the people of this nation are aware of this matter. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack ‘s Bill provides that a tribunal’s findings which were knocked back on 25 July 1974 will come into effect as soon as the Bill receives royal assent. That cannot possibly happen until some time in February or March, or perhaps even later. It all depends on when and whether the people in another place would pass the measure and submit it for royal assent.

It is quite fair to say that if the Bill were passed and received royal assent the salaries to be paid to the people envisged in the legislation would be paid in mid- 1975 in the terms of the Remuneration Tribunal’s suggestions that were made in May or June of 1 974. 1 do not think for a moment that the salaries would be decreased, but we do not know what will happen in the economy.

We have our fears. We set an example. For my part I supported setting the example by a deferral for 6 months. Before this Parliament meets again 6 months will have elapsed since the deferral. I believe that in fairness to all those affected by the legislation, their salary position should be reviewed by the same tribunal which this Parliament set up and to which it gave authority and responsibility to review the salaries of these people. My amendment is very simple. On the motion that this Bill be now read a second time, which has been opposed by the Government, I move:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert ‘the Remuneration Bill (No. 2) 1974 be not further considered because the Senate is of the opinion that the Remuneration Tribunal should report again’.

In other words, I am saying that when the Tribunal makes a report it will be able to say, firstly to the Government which receives the report and then to the Parliament, what the salaries, allowances and financial conditions of employment for people working under this legislation should be in the year 1975. It will then be up to the Government and the Parliament- particularly the Senate- to accept their grave responsibility either to accept the Tribunal ‘s findings in total or in an amended form or to toss it out again. It would be my sincere hope that on a matter of principle the Senate would not reject the findings. I am speaking from a personal point of view on this matter; it has not been canvassed by me within my Party. I believe that if the Tribunal reports again and the Senate refuses to accept any of its findings, it would be the end of such tribunals. We would have to go searching for a method of deciding the salaries of people who come under the jurisdiction of this legislation.

I believe my amendment is a simple one; it is easily understood. It is based on good, hard facts. If it is passed and the Government puts it into operation, then on whatever scale the Tribunal reports to the Parliament we will at least be doing an honest, fair thing by both the people who pay taxes and those who receive the salaries and allowances which come under the jurisdiction of this legislation.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I second the amendment. This is not an Opposition amendment which Senator Marriott has moved; it is Senator Marriott’s own amendment. Therefore I speak in a personal capacity and not as Leader of the Opposition. Without raking over all the coals of what happened 6 months ago- let us not do that tonight- I feel quite free to second the amendment as a member of the Opposition. As I recall what Senator Marriott said it is in line with our policy of 6 months ago. As I recall, our Party decision was to allow all other determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal to pass and to seek a deferment of those directed at members of Parliament. As I remember the speech I made that night on behalf of the Opposition, I talked about a 6 months deferment. I can see no reason, therefore, why I should be handicapped as Leader of the Opposition. Although I am not putting the Opposition’s view but my own, I believe it to be in line with the stance the Opposition took some five or six months ago that all other officers ought to be remunerated at a proper rate as determined by the Tribunal. I take the view that the deferment those of us who sit in this Parliament sought has most likely now run out and there is therefore no reason why I cannot second and support Senator Marriott ‘s amendment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- The question is that the words proposed to be omitted be omitted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The question now is that the words proposed to be inserted be inserted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

page 3432

LOANS (AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 December, on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

-The Opposition supports this Bill, although it has had and still has some reservations about the necessity for it. In the present state of the international money markets, which are affected so gravely by the oil crisis and the large build-up of funds in Arab hands, it appears that the situation has now developed whereby the Australian Industry Development Corporation cannot obtain some of the funds that are available on that market because the funds are available only to governments or bodies which are accepted as equivalent to government borrowers or which are borrowing with a clear government guarantee. The object of this Bill is to give power to the Treasurer to borrow on behalf of Australia and thereby to make it a pure government borrowing, but to on-lend the funds borrowed in this way on the international market to the Australian Industry Development Corporation. It is obviously desirable that Australia should be able to obtain some benefit from the existence of the funds which are available but which apparently are not available to private borrowers in Australia. It is on that basis, and that basis only, that the Opposition is prepared to support this Bill.

As I have said, we have had some reservations and have certainly been concerned about the Bill for the obvious reason that we have always taken the view that the Australian Industry Development Corporation should not be given preference in this way; that it should operate in a purely commercial manner; and that it should not have to lean on the crutch of government. It certainly should not be given a preferred position in the Australian money market, not a preferred position in the international market to other Australian borrowers. However, the position clearly appears to be that these moneys will not be available to other competitors and will be available only if the Australian Government borrows the money and passes it on to the AIDC. The Opposition has been concerned, nevertheless, to ensure that this would not mean the moneys would be available to the Corporation in Australia on preferred terms and then on-lent on terms which might be more favourable to the Corporation than when they were borrowed by the Government itself. We were also concerned to ensure that these borrowing powers would not be expanding the present limits on borrowing by the AIDC.

When the Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives it did not cover those two latter matters of concern. Representations were made by the Opposition in regard to them. I am pleased to note that the then Treasurer accepted the amendments suggested by the Opposition in relation to both of these matters and that those amendments have been incorporated in this Bill. So there is no longer any need now for the Opposition to make any amendments. I recapitulate that the Bill provides that the Treasurer shall ensure as far as reasonably practicable when he on-lends money borrowed by Australia to AIDC that the financial terms on which the loan is made are not less favourable to Australia than those on which Australia borrowed the moneys out of which the loan is made.

The other provision is quite clear that nothing in this legislation authorises the Corporation to borrow moneys which the Corporation would not otherwise be permitted to borrow. At present the Corporation is entitled to borrow up to $250m. However it has already borrowed $60m-odd. So the limit contained in this Bill of $250m cannot in fact be met until further capital is made available to the Corporation. It is also, I think, quite clear under the Corporation’s powers that any of the moneys borrowed by Australia on its behalf and on-lent to it will only be available to the Corporation for its assistance in projects put up to it by Australian industry. It will not be available to the Corporation for any purchases of shares on the ordinary share market. The fears that I have had expressed to me that this will mean, in the depressed state of the market, that AIDC will be able to come in with this money and buy up shares on the cheap are quite unfounded. These moneys will be available to the Corporation only to enable it to carry out its ordinary purposes of assisting projects put up to it by Australian industry and accepted by it.

As I have said, we are supporting this measure because we believe that the moneys available on the international market should be tapped by Australia and turned to the benefit of Australian industry. However, we are concerned that the

Australian Industry Development Corporation apparently has not been able to establish itself in the international money market as being equivalent to a government institution and that it has to come before the Parliament and obtain powers whereby the Government itself has to borrow on behalf of AIDC. That is not what we of the Opposition believe is the proper or desirable role for AIDC. It must be a matter of regret that the Corporation has not yet been able to establish itself on its own feet in such a way that it can tap those funds which, as I said, are now available only to governments or governmental authorities. However, I am pleased to note that the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) said in his second reading speech:

It is not proposed that AIDC be relieved of the responsibility for arranging its own borrowings in those markets or from those sources that are open to it to approach direct in the ordinary course of its operations.

He also said:

There is no requirement or intention, however, that all overseas borrowings for the purposes of AIDC should be undenaken by the Government.

We were very pleased to note those statements of policy by the Government. They are certainly in accordance with the policies which have always been pursued by the Opposition in regard to AIDC. However, as I have said, it is a matter of regret that the AIDC has not so fully established itself as a borrower in the international money market that it is necessary for it to come before the Parliament and request the Parliament to give these powers to the Australian Government to borrow on its behalf. I hope that it will be able in the near future to establish itself fully in the international money market so that it will not be necessary to make use of these powers. The Corporation has some difficulties. I believe that the Bill probably overcomes most of those difficulties and alleviates most of the concern. However, we believe that it is wrong in principle that the borrowing for AIDC should have to be done in this way. We are prepared to support the Bill only because of the peculiar circumstances that have arisen and the desirability for Australia and Australian industries as soon as possible and in the most direct way possible to have advantage of moneys that are available in the present state of the international market.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– in reply- The Bill seeks to provide additional funds for the Australian Industry Development Corporation. Senator Durack raised 2 points. One suggests that the AIDC may have some advantage over other financial institutions which are providing development finance for industry, especially the Australian Resources Development Bank. The fact is that AIDC is the only financial institution in Australia that is constrained to seek its borrowings principally overseas. The reason for this was expressed by Sir John McEwen when the original Act was introduced to the Parliament in 1970. He said:

What we want to do by establishing the Australian Industry Development Corporation is to create a facility to tap some of this overseas capital for Australian industry, getting it more in the form of loans and less in overseas equity.

The monetary situation has fluctuated and changed considerably since 1970. But given the widely held view that Australia will continue to be a capital importing nation for some time ahead, this basic role for the AIDC is unlikely to change. Accordingly, it makes perfect sense that the AIDC, as a nationally oriented financial intermediary, should have access, on behalf of Australian industrial companies urgently requiring development capital, to overseas funds on the best possible terms. It is important for the Senate to remember that it was fundamental to the legislation originally introduced into the Parliament that the AIDC should obtain the bulk of these funds on the overseas money market.

The second point that Senator Durack raised is that the AIDC may not be regarded as a successful borrower on the international money market. The fact is that it has been a successful borrower in its own name. For example, in October 1 972 the AIDC successfully negotiated its first overseas public bond issue on terms and conditions accorded only to first class international borrowers. That was a Deutschemark $50m raising for 15 years. More recently the AIDC announced its second public issue on the European capital market- $US25m for 7 years at 10.25 per cent. One of the largest United States dollar issues in Europe under current market conditions, the terms are equal to that of international issues guaranteed by national governments.

I would just mention that international capital markets are going through a period of fundamental change. This, of course, is because of the spectacular growth in the wealth of Middle East oil exporting countries combined with world wide economic uncertainty characterised by rapidly fluctuating exchange rates and, of course, high rates of inflation. That has made for an extremely difficult international borrowing climate. Because of the uncertainties, investors have tended to favour short term investments, and the Arab lenders in particular, with vast sums at their disposal, look for the highest security. Under these circumstances, countries wanting to tap these new and vast sources of capital for their own industrial development have a real advantage if they can raise loans for commercial purposes against their government’s own name. It does not follow that the AIDC in its own right is not a successful borrower on the world market, nor does it suggest that its standing is something which overseas lenders would look down upon. It is obvious that its standing is high and secure.

In view of the fact that the Opposition is not opposing the legislation, although certainly Senator Durack has indicated some reservations, I hope that the points I have made will be adequate to satisfy him that it should pass in its present form. I am sure that in this chamber there is agreement on both sides that AIDC is a most worthwhile venture which can only be of benefit to Austraiian industry. In fact, it has been of benefit to Australian industry since its formation and will continue to be so. It will continue to need the support of this Parliament to ensure that the flow of money to it can be maintained.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3434

STATES GRANTS (FRUIT-GROWING RECONSTRUCTION) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 December, on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– The Opposition is supporting this measure. It represents a continuation of and a slight improvement on legislation introduced by the McMahon Government in 1972 to help fruit growers in Australia. The scheme is known as the tree fell and clear scheme, or the fruit industry reconstruction scheme. It is different from the normal farming reconstruction scheme. Money is provided in 2 ways, firstly, for people in the fruit industry who find that owing to the sad state of the industry and lack of markets overseas, I believe caused mostly by the loss to us of our European markets, they have to get out of it. A loan is provided but that loan becomes a grant after 5 years if the recipient has remained out of the industry. Secondly, the Bill also provides money for those who want to partially get out of the industry.

I must say briefly that it has always disturbed me that we have been paying people, particularly in Tasmania, to get out of the production of apples and pears and other orchard fruit. I still believe- I do not blame any federal or state government for this situation, nor even the marketing authorities and private enterprise. I still believe that world markets could be found for our fruit. I would much rather see a scheme which subsidised the production of healthy food by shipping it to markets in developing and poorer countries under subsidy so that the growers get not a rich but a fair return for their crop. I visualise all the countries surrounding the Indian Ocean- an ocean to which all of us should be turning our attention- and I visualise the millions of our friends in Asia benefiting from such a scheme.

I know the problems in exporting Tasmanian apples to Japan because of codlin moth. I believe the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) and his Department are doing all they can to overcome this problem so that the Japanese market can be made available to the Australian apple and pear industry. The scheme has been successful if success is helping fruit growers out of the profession of growing fruit into some other form of primary production. I cannot speak with authority on areas outside Tasmania with respect to fruit growing, but the Tasmanian soil and climate are such that orchard lands suitable for growing the best fruit in the world can be turned to small farming- to dairy farming, crop farming, pig farming and other pursuits. Therefore at least I can say the tree pull reconstruction scheme enables Tasmanian orchardists to leave the industry.

I do not believe this is the time or the measure on which to debate more fully what should and could be done for the fruit industry in Australia. However, I emphasise that we should be producing food for a starving world, not spending money to help people to stop producing vital and necessary food. It is possible that people will say that we cannot sell apples and pears in this country or that country. The reason could be that no one has put the fruit at a reasonable price into the streets of the cities of these heavily populated areas. I would much rather see government, State or Federal, and private enterprise come forward with a scheme for putting on markets in countries that need food, the health giving fruit that we grow. But more of that at another time and place. I congratulate the Minister on extending the scheme through 1975. 1 hope he and his Department will give great thought to improving the industry in other respects.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– in reply- Very briefly, I thank Senator Marriott for his comments and the support of the Opposition for this legislation. As he pointed out, there are very great problems in this industry. The present scheme which is being extended under this legislation is being carried on from the initiatives of the previous Government. We believe it has been of benefit to the industry, especially in Tasmania. It has helped a lot of fruit growers. One may argue the philosophical question as to whether we should be destroying fruit trees in a world that needs more food. It is a pity the proposition was not as simple as that. I am sure that Senator Marriott appreciates that it is much more difficult. Nevertheless the continuation of the scheme is sought by the industry generally and I believe that the Senate should pass this measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3435

APPROPRIATION (URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 November, on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– The Opposition does not oppose this Bill which seeks to provide $66,110,000 to the States for public transport projects. It is clearly in line with the Liberal-Country Party policy to provide a continuing program to enable the upgrading of urban transport in Australia. However, a great deal more is required to be done if much needed train replacement programs are to be carried out by the States and other projects for public transport are to be achieved. Ways must be devised to persuade private motorists to use public transport rather than their private vehicles, particularly in the central business districts of our capital cities. The problems of urban transportation are likely to assume increasing importance over the coming decades as many Australians are attracted towards cities. Most projections envisage further increases in motor vehicle ownership in Australia. For instance, it is estimated that by 1983 there will be 1.5 million private cars in Sydney while in Brisbane the number is predicted to rise from 226,000 in 1 968 to 658,000 in the year 2000. This is rather staggering.

In Sydney air pollution is a problem already. It is one of the worst cities in the world in this respect and by the year 2000 predictably it will be much worse. In order to discourage the continued intrusion of the private car into business centres more comfortable and more frequent buses, trains or trams must be provided and cheaper fares should be the aim of governments. In the 1973 Cities Commission’s report it was estimated that by the year 200 1 Sydney will have a population in excess of 5 million, Melbourne’s population will be greater than 4.4 million, and Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane and Hobart will have similar increases. If urban residents maintain the present trend in mobility it seems to me appropriate that relevant State governments should adopt the English and American idea of a single authority answerable to the State with responsibility for both town planning and transport but working in close and continued co-operation with local government.

In the interests of time I will reduce my remarks to a minimum but I do wish to point to the necessity to upgrade the road systems in our urban areas so that we can provide a more efficient and effective public transport system for our city areas. I believe that one method of improving public transport is to provide exclusive bus or rapid transit lanes on all new freeways. In this way buses can provide a viable alternative to the car. When automated systems are subsequently introduced into Australia bus lanes on busier freeways could be changed to guideways for rapid transit systems, especially on an unending freeway.

If all public transport systems were operated under a single authority, it could be arranged that a single ticket, for example, would provide transit on several forms of public transport, especially for inter-suburban movement. I am rather interested in this proposition of rapid transit systems and in my view in future bus services could be replaced by this form of transportation to advantage. At present freeeways cost about $4.5m a mile in the inner city area; about $2. 4m about 3 to 5 miles out; and $2m a mile further out. I believe- this is borne out by checks that I have made- that the inclusion of an additional $ 1 m a mile for public rapid transit systems in the construction stage would thus not be catastrophic while it would provide a public transport system which can be shown to be profitable. It would occur to me that the Government may consider bringing consultants to Australia from Germany. I know that in Freiburg in Germany there is an interesting development called DEMAG, which is an above ground level rapid transit system. It occurs to me that the Government ought to be looking towards gaining the knowledge of people who are well advanced in these systems. I think the Federal Governmment should consult the States to see whether there is a possibility of introducing a pilot scheme or schemes to experiment in this particular area of public transport.

The States claim that one of the reasons that their railway equipment is so old is the low depreciation allowed. Although most of this equipment is still functional, its economic life has well passed. If the Australian Government settled the outstanding debts of the railways and authorised the raising of loan funds to reinvest in rolling stock, the rate of amortisation could be adjusted to provide for replacement as technology improves, about every ten to fifteen years, rather than operating the equipment past its engineered life. Were it not for the restriction of time, I could elaborate on other areas of interest at which the Liberal Party and Country Party are looking.

Finally, I want to refer again to the Bill. I wish to indicate that the Opposition welcomes the measure. We are concerned about the problems of the States because the provisions in this Bill do not come up to the amount required by the States. I believe, for example, that Victoria sought $33.87m for projects to be undertaken in 1974-75. Under this Bill, Victoria will receive only $2 1.74m, a shortfall of about $ 12m. I want to refer briefly to one or two of the projects that are contemplated in South Australia. The Bill provides for rolling-stock for electrifying the Christie Downs railway. There are Municipal Tramways Trust projects involving the acquisition of 24 buses for replacement and extension of the service; acquisition of 3 bus prototypes; acquisition of 4 buses previously ordered by a private operator; and there are other capital items which are included for the benefit of South Australia. The other States will benefit in similar ways as a result of this Bill. I ask the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) and the Government to consider what I have mentioned about looking ahead to the possible time when we will be confronted with the introduction of these rapid personal transit systems. Perhaps the Minister might give consideration to inviting consultants from overseas to help him.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– in reply- I thank the Opposition for not opposing the legislation. I thank Senator Jessop for his support of the measure. I thank him also for the many proposals that he made to overcome the problems in relation to road transport. I shall refer his proposals to the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones). I think that the Minister may be tempted to seek the advice of the experts in the field. Nevertheless, Senator Jessop ‘s views will be conveyed to the Minister. I suppose I could reply adequately on the matter of whether the allocations to the States are sufficient or whether they are as much as the States desired, but I simply say that the allocations are made by agreement. The hour is late. This is the last day of the session. Rather than score points, I simply thank the Opposition for its support of this measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3436

ABORIGINAL LAND FUND BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-The Opposition supports the Aboriginal Land Fund Bill 1 974, the purpose of which is to assist Aboriginal communities to acquire land outside Aboriginal reserves. The Bill had its genesis in an initiative taken by the former Liberal-Country Party Government in 1971 and it is something which we, of course, totally support. We are glad to see that the proposals are being proceeded with. We do not wish to delay the Senate by making long speeches, reiterating the reasons for our support for the legislation. I refer honourable senators to the comments which were made by Mr Hunt when this Bill was being debated in the House of Representatives. I adopt in general the remarks which he made in relation to the Bill. At that time he raised a number of matters in relation to the administration of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I know that that is a matter which, in many ways, is deserving of a lengthy debate at the earliest possible opportunity. I look forward to such a debate taking place upon the resumption of this chamber in the new year. By then the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) will have had a little more time in which to put his house in order and we hope that he will be able to give us some better news than he could if we were to debate the matter tonight.

However, I take the opportunity, in dealing with a matter relating to Aboriginal Affairs, to raise again a matter which I raised during question time today; that is, the rather extraordinary situation which has arisen, namely that a former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and current member of the present Government should, without the present Minister’s authority, be prepared to table to a committee, without compulsion, some 250 pages of confidential departmental documents and that he also should be prepared to make against the Secretary of that Department, Mr Dexter, a series of extremely serious charges, including perjury, disloyalty, incapacity to communicate with his ministerial head, and being responsible for financial irregularities in the Department. I want to take the opportunity just to reiterate the seriousness with which the Opposition regards the present situation in which one Minister in the present Government is accusing a departmental head of matters of such seriousness. I do not think it is appropriate for the present Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Cavanagh, to pass this off by saying: ‘Well, it is a matter really for the Public Accounts Committee to sort out’. I think it is more serious than that. I do not want to delay the Senate tonight other than to stress to you, Mr Minister, the seriousness with which we view the situation. I call upon you to act one way or another to determine the matter.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Sack Gordon Bryant?

Senator RAE:

– I think that one way or another the matter needs to be brought to some sort of finality. I am not going to suggest here tonight the ways in which it could be done. I do not want to provoke a lengthy debate; I simply take the opportunity to stress the seriousness of the situation. It is not something which can be just passed off as if it had not happened.

I return to the Bill by saying that we believe the Bill will achieve desirable objectives in ensuring that the Aboriginal people of Australia will have through this legislation a further opportunity to acquire land- land which is extremely important to them, land for which they have an affinity which many white people do not quite understand, land which has a relationship and a meaning to them which, as I say, many white people do not really understand. I believe it is tremendously important that this opportunity for obtaining land for Aboriginal communities outside the reserves should be pursued. I assure the Minister that he has the total support of the Opposition in pursuing this objective. I also mention that my colleague Senator Bonner has some remarks which he wishes to make in relation to the Bill. The Opposition will support the passage of the Bill.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-I wish to indicate that, like my colleague Senator Rae, I support this measure, which is the Aboriginal Land Fund Bill, but I just wonder whether perhaps the Government in its haste and whathaveyou has introduced it to forestall a motion that I put down in this chamber some months ago in relation to Aboriginal claims throughout Australia as a whole. Although we are supporting this measure at this time because it will give to some sections of the Aboriginal community some land, I think the Bill falls far short of the measure which I introduced here some months ago and which I hope will finally come up for debate and determination in the near future. I am very happy to see that an opportunity will be given to groups of Aborigines under this Bill to purchase land and be able to do something with it. I am very concerned that when Aborigines endeavour through this Bill to purchase land caution shall be taken to ensure that it will be used for the betterment of the Aboriginal people and that it will be ascertained whether the land purchased under the provisions of this Bill will be of some use to the Aboriginal people in an economic sense.

Having looked at the Bill there are some parts of it with which I am not happy and to which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh), that is, of course, if the Minister is prepared to listen to what I have to say instead of being distracted by other people within the chamber. I wish to draw to the Minister’s attention Part III- Constitution and Meetings of the Commission. Clause 8 reads:

  1. The Commission shall consist of S members, namely-

    1. a Chairman; and
    2. 4 other members, of whom at least 2 shall be Aboriginals.

I prefer the term ‘Aborigines’. That clause strikes me as rather strange because here we have the Government setting up a commission to deal with an Aboriginal land fund and yet the Government makes provision for only 2 Aborigines. Why should there not be 5 Aborigines? Why should this Commission be administered by nonAboriginal people rather than by Aborigines? Surely Aborigines can handle such a Commission. If they need to draw upon white expertise, provision of that could be made in the Bill. Surely expertise can be bought. Experts are a dime a dozen in any other field. I think that particular expertise is needed in the field of Aboriginal affairs and I believe that Aborigines would certainly be better than non-Aboriginal people as members of this Commission, providing of course that, if necessary, the Aboriginal commissioners could buy or hire white expertise in this field.

Clause 1 2 of the Bill says:

  1. The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of a member by reason of misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity.

That is fair enough. Sub-clause 2 says:

If a member-

is absent, except on leave of absence granted by the Minister, from 3 consecutive meetings of the Commission;

Why should it be granted by the Minister and not by the members of the Commission? At different times I have sat on boards. If a person absents himself from a number of consecutive meetings then the members of that board have the right to say: ‘You can no longer be a member of the board’. Why must this power be vested in the Minister rather than in the Commission, which I hope would be made up of Aborigines?

Clause 13, sub-clause (2), says:

The Minister may appoint a person to act as a member, other than the Chairman -

Again I ask why it should be the Minister. Why should the members of the Commission not appoint someone from their numbers to act as their chairman, as happens on many bodies? I am the President of the One People of Australia League. If I were not at a board meeting the members of the board would have the right to appoint one of their members to act as chairman at that time. Why is all the power being vested in the Minister? These are some of the points I wish to raise. I hope that in his reply the Minister will clarify these matters for me.

I feel quite confident in my own mind that Aborigines would see these things again as a direction from the white experts, the white administrators, or the pseudo experts as many Aborigines term white people who are involving them- selves in Aboriginal affairs today. It seems rather strange to me that we spent some time here last week talking about Queensland, the Queensland Government and the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs having too much say in Aboriginal matters, yet we find the Minister who levelled that criticism at Queensland is in the Federal sphere, putting himself in the position where he shall direct the Aborigines. We heard much from the present Australian Government and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs criticising the Queensland Government for interfering too much in Aboriginal affairs. Yet this Bill, which is brought forward by the very same Minister, gives the Minister so much power in Aboriginal affairs. As I said, the Commission will be comprised of non-Aboriginal people but the Government has conceded that perhaps it will have at least 2 Aborigines. Why not 5 Aboriginal commissioners dealing in this matter that is so important to Aboriginal people?

Senator Rae:

– The five being all the commissioners?

Senator BONNER:

-Yes, that is right. The Commission will be made up of 5 persons. The Bill says that at least two may be Aborigines. It does not say that two shall, two must or two will; it says that at least two may be Aborigines. There is much to be learnt by the non-Aboriginal community in matters pertaining to Aboriginal relationships and attachment to land. To Aboriginal people land is not just a piece of dirt that can be used for commercial purposes; it is something that is part and parcel of Aborigines. We are part of the land. We are part and parcel of the streams, the mountains, the trees, the flora and the fauna. When we talk about land we do not talk about fencing or of having 10 acres of land and growing and selling grain. We talk about land as being part of us. It is the bedrock of our philosophy. We are part of that land, so it is very important to us. If anyone takes away the land from us or takes us away from the land he destroys us. Though I am happy in some regards with what the Government is doing in making finance available so that Aborigines can purchase back some of their own land, by the same token I am not completely happy with some of the clauses in the Bill. The Opposition supports this measure, small though it may be.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– It was not my intention to waste time in replying to matters raised in regard to this Bill which I have the carriage of this evening. I have been invited by most speakers to make some reply to the questions they have raised. I think they are entitled to that. I thank the Opposition for agreeing to the legislation and assisting in its speedy passage. Senator Rae seems to have some concern that I am not making public statements in condemnation of my colleague, the previous Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The previous Minister held the opinion that he had a defence to make against charges made against him before the Joint Committee on Public Accounts. It is stated that the 250 pages of evidence placed before the Committee include charges against the head of my Department for perjury, disloyalty and a number of other accusations.

If Mr Bryant was of the opinion that the head of my Department was guilty of such allegations, he had a perfect right to put his views before the Committee. In fact I think he had a duty to put them before the Committee. He has done that. I have more faith in tribunals than Senator Rae. I think this is extraordinary in view of Senator Rae ls profession. I accept the judgment of umpires, and more so when the judgment is from a committee that this Parliament has appointed.

I do not think we made mistakes in this Committee. The head of my Department has made certain accusations against the previous Minister. The previous Minister has retaliated with other accusations and has said that the Head of my Department was all wrong and that he was the villain of the piece. This Committee was asked to decide this question and I am invited by the honourable senator to step in and make a decision now. Who is right on this? Should I condemn Mr Bryant or should I condemn Mr Dexter? I am invited to do either of those things. I have faith in the tribunal. We have an impartial tribunal considering this question, and I think that it would be unfair at this stage to express an opinion that would show my support or condemnation of one or the other. Surely as a matter of justice we should be fair and let the tribunal decide the question.

Senator Bonner is very unfortunate. He is in a frightful position as a result of the defeat last week of the legislation relating to Queensland Aborigines. He has to face the Aborigines in Queensland in the coming weeks, so he raises a number of questions which show a complete ignorance of normal Bills that deal with commissions. Firstly, he says that this Bill is designed to forestall his motion. If he examines the Bill he will see that it is to do something. It is to put some money in a land trust. His motion would achieve nothing for Aborigines. It merely seeks an expression of opinion by the Senate. The more I look at his motion the more I see it as being completely in line with Labor Party policy. I think he has somewhat copied Labor Party policy for the purpose of drafting his motion. I have discussed the motion with Senator Bonner and he has assured me that he intends to bring it on for debate in the next session of the Parliament. At this stage I cannot see instructions being given by Caucus to oppose the motion. I think it will go through unanimously. But Senator Bonner must recognise that his motion seeks nothing but an expression of opinion. This Bill seems to give something tangible to Aborigines. Senator Bonner condemns this Bill because there will be a predominance of Europeans on the Aboriginal Loans Commission. Of course, that is not so. Senator Rae interjected to Senator Bonner and said ‘They may’ -

Senator Rae:

– I did not say that.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Someone made the interjection, and Senator Bonner repeated it and said: ‘They may have two, but not necessarily’. But the Bill does not say that at all. Clause 10 of the Bill states:

The Commission shall consist of S members, namely-

a Chairman; and

four other members, of whom at least two shall be Aborigines.

It is mandatory to appoint 2 Aborigines, but the Bill does not limit the number to two. It was the recommendation of the Australian Government that on the Loans Commission consisting of 5 members, there should be 3 Aborigines.

Senator Bonner:

– Are you giving an assurance that there will be more than two?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Why should I give Senator Bonner any assurance? He is deciding on the legislation. If he does not like it he can vote against it. He does not ask the Minister to say what is in the legislation or that he is going to give him an assurance of something else. I am saying that Cabinet recommended the appointment of 3 Aborigines out of 5 members of the Loans Commission. It was found only after approaching those concerned that one of them was not available to serve on the Loans Commission. Now the position has been reversed so that three out of the 5 members will be Europeans. This is a specialist commission which has been established for the purpose not of deciding land rights but of controlling money allocations. Of course, of necessity the best qualified men must be appointed to a loans trust that is to give out money. If there are 5 qualified Aborigines who have accounting experience in regard to loan moneys, then 5 Aborigines shall be on the Commission, because the Minister makes the appointment. This has been a paste and scissors operation. This type of clause is found in other legislation dealing with commissions. The Minister is responsible for the Loans Commission. He makes the appointments. Whether people go off the Commission is the responsibility of the Minister. He decides whether to appoint someone else. The honourable senator wants to take this power from the Parliament and hand it over to this Commission. This is contrary to the functioning of every other commission which we have established. I have in mind the Snowy Mountains Authority, the Grants Commission and any other commission. This is something which Senator Bonner wants because he has never read a Bill which relates to any other commission.

page 3439

ADJOURNMENT

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 3440

ABORIGINAL LAND FUND BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I shall be very brief. I understand that Senator Bonner is putting up the pretence of supporting the Aboriginals. He is losing the battle. We all know of the scurrilous propaganda about how we deprived the Gurindji tribe of land rights and everything else and how, over the time, we have left them in Wattie Creek starving.

Senator Bonner:

– What has the Government done for Wattie Creek?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I shall tell the honourable senator if he will have patience. Yesterday the old tribal leader, Vincent Lingiairi, whom everyone respects and admires, sent me this telegram:

I have please in advising you that Gurindji and Wattie Creek and towns people Wave Hill township have united in name of Libanangu Community Council to work together in all projects associated with development of Wave Hill town and . . . cattle station (Wattie Creek). We have held joint council meetings over last week and have agreed to work as one group. Stories about food shortages are not true we have never been starving. We shall keep in touch with director Lovegrove in Darwin through our community advisor about extensions of special projects already approved by you development of cattle station and possibility of in crease grant. Our compliments to you.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3440

STATES GRANTS (DWELLINGS FOR PENSIONERS) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 December, on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– The States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Bill is the next logical step from the States Grants (Dwellings for Aged Pensioners) Act 1969. That Bill, which provided a 5-year program of $25m for completely self-contained accommodation for single aged pensioners in receipt of the supplementary assistance, expired this year. This Bill provides a 3-year program of a total of $30m. It extends the provision of eligibility not only to single aged pensioners but also to invalid pensioners, service pensioners who are permanently unemployed or suffering from tuberculosis and to class B widows. The Bill provides for an annual interest free repayable grant to the States of $10m, making $30m for 3 years.

It does do something with regard to the indication of the use of supplementary assistance on rents. It provides that the rent payable for a unit shall not be less than the amount of supplementary assistance. As I say, the Bill represents the extension of a program devised by LiberalCountry Party governments. It has our full support.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I thank the Opposition for its support.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3440

PAPUA NEW GUINEA BILL (No. 2) 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 December, on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

- Mr Deputy President, may I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the Senate to hold a joint debate on the Papua New Guinea Bill (No. 2) 1974 and the Judges Pensions Bill 1974 so that the argument may be even shorter than usual.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- Is leave granted for that course to be followed? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Opposition does not oppose the Bills. But it should be said that these Bills are being treated with a contumely both by the House of Representatives and by the Senate which belies the importance which they have to the future of Papua New Guinea and does little to acknowledge the contribution which Australia has made towards the development of independence in that Territory. The Papua New Guinea Bill (No. 2) 1974 is probably the second last Bill which will come into the Parliament relating to Papua New Guinea. It is a Bill which ensures that the areas of control which previously were retained by Australia, namely, foreign affairs, defence and, putting it shortly, the judicial system will be matters which on proclamation will be vested in the House of Assembly of the Territory of New Guinea. A Bill which has that effect is a Bill which indicates that Australia’s role with regard to Papua New Guinea is determining. It ought not to go back in the rather cavalier attitude with which the Government has treated this measure. It has been regarded by the Government as one of those events which has to happen and that therefore one passes it by and really pays no acknowledgement to the significance of what is occurring.

We, for our part, feel that there are too many matters which have been left unresolved by this Government, a government which really does not care about Papua New Guinea just as it does not care about the people of Australia and the state of this nation. It is wise and proper that this ought to be revealed as the attitude of this Government. I saw the statement of the Minister for Science, Mr Morrison, and the statement of the Minister for Defence, Mr Barnard. They said that when in due course independence comes to New Guinea then in some way, undefined, unspecified and with no indication as to what the future holds, the defence of that area will be Australia’s responsibility. I would hope that Australia would accept the responsibility for the defence of Papua New Guinea when it becomes independent. I hope that Australia would do this not only for the defence of that country but also because it is in Australia’s interests that we should do so.

I believe that it is about time this Government gave some concern and consideration to what those defence arrangements will be. We are being given absolutely no information by this Government, and yet it must be apparent that at some time in the early or middle part of 1 975 it is to be expected that complete independence for Papua New Guinea will be asserted by that country and accepted by Australia. It is high time that Australia spelt out what its role ought to be with regard to defence and sought the cooperation of what is already a self-governing country with a view to determining the arrangements for the future. It is no credit to this Government that it has done nothing in that area, and I believe that it is something the Government could give attention to in the next few months. The Parliament of Australia needs better, deserves better than what has been done, and I believe that in the final discharge of our obligations to the people of Papua New Guinea under the trusteeship agreement we ourselves should do something about ensuring that their independence will be a real and guaranteed independence. We have a role to fulfil, but this Government appears to be doing absolutely nothing in regard to it. If it is doing something, then one of the Ministers, if he can spare the time to talk to this Senate, might be prepared to give us the information in due course.

The second matter to which I refer relates to the boundaries of Papua New Guinea when it secures its complete independence. This is another area where this Government has been absolutely neglectful in terms of what are to be the boundaries of an independent Papua New Guinea. The Constitution is ignored and the rights of the people of Queensland, the rights of the people of Papua New Guinea and the rights of the Torres Strait Islanders are just not taken account of in the assertions that our present Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) makes about what should be the independence of Papua New Guinea. We have a Constitution in this nation which ought to be observed. I know that is old fashioned to members of this Government because to them the Constitution is something to be defied and ignored and not to be respected. But the people of Queensland, who so resoundingly gave their opinion of this Government only last Saturday, are entitled, under the Constitution of this Commonwealth, to be consulted if there is any adjustment of the boundaries of Queensland. There must be adjustments to the boundaries of Queensland if there is to be any recognition or acknowledgement of what the House of Assembly of Papua New Guinea is asserting about what should be the ultimate boundaries of an independent Papua New Guinea.

Has the Government taken this Parliament into its confidence on that matter? Not at all. Has it given any information about what its thinking is or about what it proposes? Not at all. And yet I recall that a matter of grave concern to the McMahon Government over 2 years ago, before it ceased to be the government of this country, was the question of how this matter was to be resolved. This Government has allowed the matter to lapse and has done nothing about it. I think it is a fair commentary, not only on the state of this Government, not only on the state of affairs of this country, but also on the state of affairs in regard to this particular problem that while I am speaking what we can hear is laughter and mirth from the Ministers of the Government who are sitting in this chamber. They can laugh while this country is in desperate straits. It is typical of the way Nero fiddled while Rome was burning, and unfortunately for this country we have to wait some months before the judgment of the people can be vindicated by an emphatic vote of denunciation of people who have done such dire things to the welfare of this country.

I indicate that the Opposition supports these Bills because they must be supported, and we do it willingly, but I indicate also that there are gaps in what should be Australia’s attitude to independence, and the laughter of the Government senators I think is a fair commentary on their general attitude. The third matter to which I refer is the second of these Bills, the Judges’ Pensions Bill. It is a Bill which is designed to ensure the pension rights of the judges of Papua New Guinea. One of the most significant advances that Australia has made in its trusteeship of Papua New Guinea has been the development of the rule of law. I am not sure whether in the space of some 20 years to 25 years the rule of law has been grounded in Papua New Guinea in a way in which it will survive independence. I certainly hope so. But, realistically, one must wonder whether the imposition of a common law tradition upon customary law in Papua New Guinea is so grounded that it will survive.

There are enormous problems which have been recognised by those who have practised law in that Territory and certainly amongst the judges who have done an immense job in administering law there. It is only proper that, when independence comes, we should evolve a system under which the judges whom Australia has appointed to the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea should be protected in their pension rights and in their futures if they decide to leave Papua New Guinea. The way in which this is proposed to be done is, I think, the sensible way. The High Commissioner, as he will be, will operate or act with regard to the judges in accordance with the general practices and directions which are to be laid down by Papua New Guinea and that generally is the form under which the selfgovernment will become ultimately independent.

I think it ought to be acknowledged at a time like this, and I wish it had been done more generously- I withdraw the word ‘generously’, for I am sure that it is not intended otherwise by the Government- or rather it had been acknowledged that the role of these persons who have been judges in Papua New Guinea has been a marvellous contribution by Australians to the development of law in that country. Sir Alan Mann gave the best years of his life as the Chief Justice of Papua New Guinea. There were others before him who did a tremendous amount of work. Sir Alan Mann died in the course of the work that he was doing. The subsequent Chief Justice, Mr Justice Minogue, has likewise done a tremendous work in developing the prestige of that Court and in ensuring that throughout that Territory the justice of the Territory, the justice of the government and the law which the Government represents has been able to be recognised and to be enforced. He has been supported by a group of judges who have done an immense service which ought to be acknowledged by this country. I hope that this will always be remembered by people in whose Territory and for whose benefit they served.

This Bill simply ensures that those judges who are still in Papua New Guinea will be protected under Australian law in their pension entitlements if they should cease to be judges. The Opposition supports the measure. I welcome the opportunity which has been given to speak to this legislation. I am sorry that at this stage one has had to make some criticisms. But I do not believe that just because Government senators want to get home they should not take cognisance of, or should fall to recognise that there are, some omissions in the contribution which the Government is making to Papua New Guinea.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

- Mr Deputy President, we are pleased that the Opposition agrees with the purposes of these Bills. I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Greenwood) for not criticising the second Bill. I negotiated what appeared to be an almost insoluble problem with respect to the pensions of judges in Papua New Guinea. I am pleased that the result is acceptable to him. I am sure that the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) who has dealt with other aspects of these problems has spent as much time, has listened to as many people and has arrived at as good a result as we did with respect to the legislation on judges’ pensions. I would hope that, while the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said a great deal about what the judges had done and what had happened about the orders, he would realise the enormous effort that was undertaken, before these Bills were introduced, by Ministers, members of the Public Service and others to produce a result which was acceptable to the Australian Government and to the Government of Papua New Guinea. I now ask the Senate to endorse the Bills.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3442

JUDGES’ PENSIONS BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 4 December, on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3443

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 3) 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 December, on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– It is fitting that the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy), who is also the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Minister for Customs and Excise, from whose office this mammoth piece of legislation originates, should be present to hear the consequential debate which will take place on issues as important as mittens, mits and gloves at this late hour in the evening. My learned friends and I were contemplating that it might be appropriate to launch into a savage debate on the 25 per cent tariff cut. We have been thinking seriously about that matter. But when we considered the latter part of the exercise, which relates to steam, gas and water fittings, we concluded that perhaps it is not appropriate at this late stage in the evening and in the session to spoil the Attorney-General’s fun. I remark in passing that the greatest gas generator in my time in the Parliament originates from South Australia in the person of Senator McLaren.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3443

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (IMPACT OF PROPOSALS) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

- Mr Temporary Chairman, there were 2 proposed amendments which had been circulated in the name of Senator Carrick. I have had discussions with him and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) concerning these matters. I have also had discussions with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy). It is the view of the Government with which I think Senators Withers and Carrick concur, that it would be unfortunate to have the passage of the whole Bill delayed in order to deal with these matters which do not go to the heart of the Bill itself but are largely machinery matters. I now give the undertaking on the part of the Government that as soon as Parliament resumes in the New Year we will introduce an amending Bill in order to carry out the effect of the amendments which were proposed by Senator Carrick. I further undertake that in the meantime no action will be taken in accord with the words within the clauses of the Bill which would have been deleted by the 2 amendments which would have been moved by Senator Carrick.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– In the light of the assurances of the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon), the Opposition will grant passage to the Bill.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise, and my colleagues knew I was proposing to rise on this matter, not because the Opposition intends to vote against the clauses, but to indicate a concern which ought to be raised. I simply want to say that when this Government departs from the scene and a new government comes into office, if not sooner, efforts will be made to remove from the statute book the dictatorial traces of this Government. This Bill contains provisions which I hope the people in the Press and other media will not allow to escape their attention. They have been concerned about Bills in various parts of Australia and overseas which can threaten the freedom of the Press, which can challenge the liberties of the subject, and which can take away citizens’ liberties. This Bill is replete with provisions of that character which I wish we were in a position to alter at this stage. We are not able to do so, but I draw to the attention of the Committee and of people who are interested in a wider area the fact that commissioners may be appointed to conduct inquiries. These commissioners are not to be qualified as the legislation of the States requires commissioners to be qualified. They are individuals who may conduct inquiries. There is nothing whatever to prevent this Government from appointing Mr Mundey, who is a well-known person -

Senator Wheeldon:

– Communist.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I accept what Senator Wheeldon has so generously proffered. Mr Mundey is a well-known communist, who is concerned to use sociological questions such as this to his own interests. There is nothing whatever to stop the Government appointing a person of that character as a commissioner. There is nothing whatever to stop the appointment of anybody the Government desires to appoint and whom the Government believes would give expression to a particular view as a commissioner. These persons will have coercive powers greater than members of the police forces in Australia to require persons to attend before them, to deliver up documents, to answer questions and to suffer penalties and possibly imprisonment if they do not do so. The penalty for failing to attend before a commissioner and for failing to answer questions is stated by the legislation to be $1,000 or imprisonment for 6 months. I seem to recall that this type of provision was challenged by some members of the Government when they were in Opposition, but it certainly has been inserted into this Bill with no inhibitions whatsoever. The commissioners have a power to inquire into any of the matters which are set out in clause S of the legislation. The width of these powers has already been adverted to. It is a width which is prescribed only by the fact -

Senator McLaren:

– Do you know we are off the air?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– 1 know we are off the air. That means that we can deal with the matter as the issue itself requires and not as governed by considerations of broadcasting time. I welcome this because this is a matter to which I think there ought to be some reference. It is a matter which I personally believe is of the utmost importance. I could see this legislation being used in a way that is not contemplated by this Senate at this particular time. It is hoped by the Opposition that, in the interests of this country, the power contained in this legislation will never be used. However, the power is contained in the legislation and it is a coercive power of the greatest significance because of the width of the inquiries which commissioners could undertake and the powers which they would have to compel people to appear before them.

I have mentioned that persons could be compelled under clause 1 5 to appear before a commissioner simply by a summons signed by the commissioner. The commissioner is not required to have regard to whether or not the person can give evidence. He may simply issue a summons and require a person to attend before him. The person would be liable to a fine or imprisonment if he did not attend. If he did not answer questions he would be likewise liable to a fine or imprisonment. If he did not produce documents he would be subject to a fine or imprisonment. These are arbitrary powers which would be exercised by a non-judicial officer and this type of provision should be regarded by this Parliament as inconsistent with the rule of law and the protection of liberties in this country.

I notice also that there are provisions contained in this Bill which give to the commissioners the protection or immunities of a High Court judge without imposing upon them the obligations of judicial office. In other words, the provisions give them power but impose no responsibility upon them. This is a frightening development. Likewise, it is an offence to insult a commissioner in the exercise of his powers or the performance of his functions or duties as a commissioner, yet he has such wide-ranging functions and powers that the ordinary person may not know when a commissioner is exercising his functions or his duties.

The onus of proof has been altered in a way which I think would cause havoc and horror if it were to happen in the area of conciliation and arbitration. Under this Bill, if a person is dismissed then the person who dismissed him is liable unless he can establish to the satisfaction of the tribunal that the person has not been dismissed for what might broadly be termed an environmental reason. If honourable senators examine the definition of ‘environmental reasons’ they will see the character of the change in the onus of proof which has been imposed. I note the undertaking which has been given but the original Bill conferred power on a commissioner, simply if he wanted to, to enter and inspect any person’s land, building or place, or to inspect any material. These are the true marks of the authoritarian and you, Mr Temporary Chairman, in your capacity as custodian of the regulations and ordinances of the nation, which has been vested in you by this Senate, would be horrified if any regulation or ordinances were brought down which contained these provisions. The Government has brought them down. As I have said, they are provisions which I hope will be before us again at an early time so that they can be removed. I speak as one who is concerned that this Parliament should ever enact laws under which coercive powers can be used without restraint, guidelines or criteria to limit the way in which they could be used.

I think that it indicates the hollowness of the claims to protect civil rights, to protect human rights, which so often come from supporters of the Government that the Government should produce Bills which contain provisions of this character. That is what I wanted to say and I have said simply for the record because I am not happy that these things should be contained in legislation. In different circumstances from those in which the Senate now finds itself, I am quite sure that action would be taken here to have them removed, but it is not possible to do that at the present time. I think that we of the Liberal Party of Australia- some people of this nationhave some obligation to ensure that basic questions of liberty are preserved. I only hope that the civil liberties organisations of this country will have regard to these provisions and will look at them not in terms of the Government which has brought them forward but in terms of what intrinsically they can permit.

Another matter which I raise at this time instead of in the debate on the motion for the third reading of the Bill is the churlish attitude on the part of the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) not to be prepared to respond to the debate on the motion for the second reading of this Bill. He is sitting smugly with a smile on his face as if it is a great achievement not to do so. I asked questions of him during the course of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill expecting a reply from him. I have not been given a reply. I suppose that the Government, in its dying days, feels that it does not owe any obligation to anybody in this country. I should have thought that the ordinary niceties of debate, the proprieties of the occasion at least would have required that the persons who raised issues were entitled to have them answered. We know that questions on notice in this place are not answered by the Ministers. I guess it is too much to expect questions asked in debates to be answered. I have had my say, Mr Temporary Chairman, and the record reveals it.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Wheeldon) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise again simply to say that the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) heard what I had to say in the Committee stage of the debate and what I had to say in the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill but has still chosen not to reply. I think that the point I made has added emphasis. I have risen only to make it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3445

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-Mr Deputy President, I ask for leave to table a report from the parliamentary delegation to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Sri Lanka.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster) Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator GEORGES:

– I bring up a report from the Commonwealth of Australia Branch delegation to the Twentieth Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference held in Colombo, Sri Lanka, in September 1974.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 3445

ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER 1973-74

In Committee

Motion (by Senator Wriedt) proposed:

That the Committee approves the statementfor the year 1973-74 of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act 1 90 1 - 1 973.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise only to say that this again illustrates the way in which this Government has treated this Parliament with contempt and ignore. This particular item has been on the notice paper for months and it is brought on at this time so that it can be put through without any debate taking place upon it. I know that technically debate can occur. But it is twenty minutes to midnight on the day on which we had expected the Senate to rise. In those circumstances no one can reasonably expect to debate this matter. I know that at least one honourable senator on the Opposition side has been awaiting debate on this issue and the opportunity has been denied because it is brought on at this hour when that senator is not here. All I can say is that it reflects upon the Government; it indicates the way in which the Government is treating not only the country but also this Parliament and the opportunity ought not be ignored to make the point. Whilst acknowledging the humour with which Senator Wheeldon treats the situation, it is something which the Australian people, as indicated by their vote in Queensland last Saturday, do not regard in the same way as he does.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION PROGRAM 29th PARLIAMENT 1974

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard a paper summarising the Government’s legislation program for the 29th Parliament.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)- 29th PARLIAMENT 1974 GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION PROGRAM

This statement brings up to date the paper summarising the Government Legislation Program for the 29th Parliament which was incorporated in Hansard by the Prime Minister on 5 December 1 974.

Notes

The number of separate Bills has been kept to a minimum by combining related matters which might otherwise have been the subject of separate Bills, e.g. combining amendments to the same Act and incorporating in the primary Bill consequential amendments to other existing Acts.

Bills Passed Both Houses include 7 Bills amended by Senate, not by Government initiative, and Bill (as amended or otherwise) subsequently being passed by Both Houses.

Bills Rejected, Laid Aside or Deferred include six Bills subsequently passed by Joint Sitting.

Appendices

  1. Bills Passed Both Houses.
  2. Bills Rejected, Laid Aside or Deferred.
  3. Other Bills Introduced, Debate Not Concluded.

Appendix 1 29th PARLIAMENT 1974 GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION PROGRAM

Proposed Laws Affirmed at Joint Sitting on 6 and 7 August 1974

Commonwealth Electoral Act (No. 2) 1 973

Senate (Representation of Territories) Act 1 973

Representation Act 1973

Health Insurance Commission Act 1973

Health Insurance Act 1973

Petroleum and Minerals Authority Act 1973

Bills Passed Both Houses

July-August Sittings 1974

Canberra Water Supply (Googong Dam) Bill 1974

Customs Bill 1974

Evidence Bill 1974

Excise Bill 1974

Extradition (Foreign States) Bill 1974

Financial Corporations Bill 1 974

Glebe Lands Appropriation Bill 1 974

Income Tax Assessment Bill 1974

Income Tax (Dividend and Interest Withholding Tax) Bill 1974

International Monetary Agreements Bill 1974

Marginal Dairy Farms Agreements Bill 1974

National Health Bill 1974

Northern Territory (Administration) Bill 1 974

Parliamentary Papers Bill 1 974

Parliamentary Proceedings (Broadcasting) Bill 1974

Prices Justification Bill 1974

Public Works Committee Bill 1974

Repatriation Bill (No. 2) 1974

Seamens War Pensions and Allowances Bill ( No. 2 ) 1 974

Social Services Bill ( No. 2 ) 1 974

States Grants ( Urban Public Transport) Bill 1 974

Statute Law Revision Bill 1974

Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Bill 1 974

Trade Practices Bill 1974

Transport Planning and Research Bill 1 974

Urban Public Transport (Research and Planning) Bill 1974

Budget Sittings 1974

Aboriginal Land Fund Bill 1974

Aboriginal Loans Commission Bill 1974

Adelaide to Crystal Brook Railway Bill 1974

Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Bill 1 974

Aged Persons Hostels Bill 1974

Airline Equipment ( Loan Guarante ) Bill 1 974

Air Navigation Bill 1974

Air Navigation (Charges) Bill 1974

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1974-1975

Appropriation Bill ( No. 2 ) 1 974- 1 975

Appropriation ( Urban Public Transport) Bill 1 974

Arbitration (Foreign Awards and Agreements) Bill 1 974

Asian Development Fund Bill 1 974

Australian Development Assistance Agency Bill 1974

Australian Shipping Commission Bill 1 974

Australian Tourist Commission Bil) 1 974

Banking Bill 1974

Banks (Housing Loans) Bill 1974

Broadcasting and Television Bill 1974

Commonwealth Banks Bill 1974

Conciliation and Arbitration (Organisations) Bill 1974

Companies ( Foreign Takeovers) Bill 1974

Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Bill 1974

Customs Bill (No. 2) 1974

Customs TariffBill 1974

Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2) 1974

Customs TariffValidation Bill (No. 2) 1974

Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 3 ) 1 974

Dairy Adjustment Bill 1974

Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (Pensions Increases) Bill 1974

Defence Service Homes Bill 1 974

Delivered Meals Subsidy Bill 1974

Election Candidates (Public Service and Defence Force) Bill 1974

Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Bill 1974

Estate Duty Assessment Bill 1974

Excise TariffBill 1974

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Bill 1 974

Export Market Development Grants Bill 1 974

Handicapped Persons Assistance Bill 1 974

page 3446

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION PROGRAM

29th PARLIAMENT 1974

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard a paper summarising the Government’s legislation program for the 29th Parliament.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)- 29th PARLIAMENT 1974 GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION PROGRAM

This statement brings up to date the paper summarising the Government Legislation Program for the 29th Parliament which was incorporated in Hansard by the Prime Minister on 5 December 1 974.

Canberra Water Supply (Googong Dam) Bill 1974

Customs Bill 1974

Evidence Bill 1974

Excise Bill 1974

Extradition (Foreign States) Bill 1974

Financial Corporations Bill 1 974

Glebe Lands Appropriation Bill 1 974

Income Tax Assessment Bill 1974

Income Tax (Dividend and Interest Withholding Tax) Bill 1974

International Monetary Agreements Bill 1974

Marginal Dairy Farms Agreements Bill 1974

National Health Bill 1974

Northern Territory (Administration) Bill 1 974

Parliamentary Papers Bill 1 974

Parliamentary Proceedings (Broadcasting) Bill 1974

Prices Justification Bill 1974

Public Works Committee Bill 1974

Repatriation Bill (No. 2) 1974

Seamens War Pensions and Allowances Bill ( No. 2 ) 1 974

Social Services Bill ( No. 2 ) 1 974

States Grants ( Urban Public Transport) Bill 1 974

Statute Law Revision Bill 1974

Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Bill 1 974

Trade Practices Bill 1974

Transport Planning and Research Bill 1 974

Urban Public Transport (Research and Planning) Bill 1974

Budget Sittings 1974

Aboriginal Land Fund Bill 1974

Aboriginal Loans Commission Bill 1974

Adelaide to Crystal Brook Railway Bill 1974

Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Bill 1 974

Aged Persons Hostels Bill 1974

Airline Equipment ( Loan Guarante ) Bill 1 974

Air Navigation Bill 1974

Air Navigation (Charges) Bill 1974

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1974-1975

Appropriation Bill ( No. 2 ) 1 974- 1 975

Appropriation ( Urban Public Transport) Bill 1 974

Arbitration (Foreign Awards and Agreements) Bill 1 974

Asian Development Fund Bill 1 974

Australian Development Assistance Agency Bill 1974

Australian Shipping Commission Bill 1 974

Australian Tourist Commission Bil) 1 974

Banking Bill 1974

Banks (Housing Loans) Bill 1974

Broadcasting and Television Bill 1974

Commonwealth Banks Bill 1974

Conciliation and Arbitration (Organisations) Bill 1974

Companies ( Foreign Takeovers) Bill 1974

Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Bill 1974

Customs Bill (No. 2) 1974

Customs TariffBill 1974

Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2) 1974

Customs TariffValidation Bill (No. 2) 1974

Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 3 ) 1 974

Dairy Adjustment Bill 1974

Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (Pensions Increases) Bill 1974

Defence Service Homes Bill 1 974

Delivered Meals Subsidy Bill 1974

Election Candidates (Public Service and Defence Force) Bill 1974

Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Bill 1974

Estate Duty Assessment Bill 1974

Excise TariffBill 1974

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Bill 1 974

Export Market Development Grants Bill 1 974

Handicapped Persons Assistance Bill 1 974

Notes

The number of separate Bills has been kept to a minimum by combining related matters which might otherwise have been the subject of separate Bills, e.g. combining amendments to the same Act and incorporating in the primary Bill consequential amendments to other existing Acts.

Bills Passed Both Houses include 7 Bills amended by Senate, not by Government initiative, and Bill (as amended or otherwise) subsequently being passed by Both Houses.

Bills Rejected, Laid Aside or Deferred include six Bills subsequently passed by Joint Sitting.

Appendices

  1. Bills Passed Both Houses.
  2. Bills Rejected, Laid Aside or Deferred.
  3. Other Bills Introduced, Debate Not Concluded.

Appendix 1 29th PARLIAMENT 1974 GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION PROGRAM

Proposed Laws Affirmed at Joint Sitting on 6 and 7 August 1974

Commonwealth Electoral Act (No. 2) 1 973

Senate (Representation of Territories) Act 1 973

Representation Act 1973

Health Insurance Commission Act 1973

Health Insurance Act 1973

Petroleum and Minerals Authority Act 1973

Bills Passed Both Houses

July-August Sittings 1974

page 3446

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION PROGRAM

29th PARLIAMENT 1974

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard a paper summarising the Government’s legislation program for the 29th Parliament.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)- 29th PARLIAMENT 1974 GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION PROGRAM

This statement brings up to date the paper summarising the Government Legislation Program for the 29th Parliament which was incorporated in Hansard by the Prime Minister on 5 December 1 974.

Canberra Water Supply (Googong Dam) Bill 1974

Customs Bill 1974

Evidence Bill 1974

Excise Bill 1974

Extradition (Foreign States) Bill 1974

Financial Corporations Bill 1 974

Glebe Lands Appropriation Bill 1 974

Income Tax Assessment Bill 1974

Income Tax (Dividend and Interest Withholding Tax) Bill 1974

International Monetary Agreements Bill 1974

Marginal Dairy Farms Agreements Bill 1974

National Health Bill 1974

Northern Territory (Administration) Bill 1 974

Parliamentary Papers Bill 1 974

Parliamentary Proceedings (Broadcasting) Bill 1974

Prices Justification Bill 1974

Public Works Committee Bill 1974

Repatriation Bill (No. 2) 1974

Seamens War Pensions and Allowances Bill ( No. 2 ) 1 974

Social Services Bill ( No. 2 ) 1 974

States Grants ( Urban Public Transport) Bill 1 974

Statute Law Revision Bill 1974

Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Bill 1 974

Trade Practices Bill 1974

Transport Planning and Research Bill 1 974

Urban Public Transport (Research and Planning) Bill 1974

Budget Sittings 1974

Aboriginal Land Fund Bill 1974

Aboriginal Loans Commission Bill 1974

Adelaide to Crystal Brook Railway Bill 1974

Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Bill 1 974

Aged Persons Hostels Bill 1974

Airline Equipment ( Loan Guarante ) Bill 1 974

Air Navigation Bill 1974

Air Navigation (Charges) Bill 1974

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1974-1975

Appropriation Bill ( No. 2 ) 1 974- 1 975

Appropriation ( Urban Public Transport) Bill 1 974

Arbitration (Foreign Awards and Agreements) Bill 1 974

Asian Development Fund Bill 1 974

Australian Development Assistance Agency Bill 1974

Australian Shipping Commission Bill 1 974

Australian Tourist Commission Bil) 1 974

Banking Bill 1974

Banks (Housing Loans) Bill 1974

Broadcasting and Television Bill 1974

Commonwealth Banks Bill 1974

Conciliation and Arbitration (Organisations) Bill 1974

Companies ( Foreign Takeovers) Bill 1974

Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Bill 1974

Customs Bill (No. 2) 1974

Customs TariffBill 1974

Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2) 1974

Customs TariffValidation Bill (No. 2) 1974

Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 3 ) 1 974

Dairy Adjustment Bill 1974

Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (Pensions Increases) Bill 1974

Defence Service Homes Bill 1 974

Delivered Meals Subsidy Bill 1974

Election Candidates (Public Service and Defence Force) Bill 1974

Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Bill 1974

Estate Duty Assessment Bill 1974

Excise TariffBill 1974

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Bill 1 974

Export Market Development Grants Bill 1 974

Handicapped Persons Assistance Bill 1 974

Notes

The number of separate Bills has been kept to a minimum by combining related matters which might otherwise have been the subject of separate Bills, e.g. combining amendments to the same Act and incorporating in the primary Bill consequential amendments to other existing Acts.

Bills Passed Both Houses include 7 Bills amended by Senate, not by Government initiative, and Bill (as amended or otherwise) subsequently being passed by Both Houses.

Bills Rejected, Laid Aside or Deferred include six Bills subsequently passed by Joint Sitting.

Appendices

  1. Bills Passed Both Houses.
  2. Bills Rejected, Laid Aside or Deferred.
  3. Other Bills Introduced, Debate Not Concluded.

Appendix 1 29th PARLIAMENT 1974 GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION PROGRAM

Proposed Laws Affirmed at Joint Sitting on 6 and 7 August 1974

Commonwealth Electoral Act (No. 2) 1 973

Senate (Representation of Territories) Act 1 973

Representation Act 1973

Health Insurance Commission Act 1973

Health Insurance Act 1973

Petroleum and Minerals Authority Act 1973

Bills Passed Both Houses

July-August Sittings 1974

Homeless Persons Assistance Bill 1974

Housing Agreement Bill 1974

Income Tax Bill 1974

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1974

Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Bill 1 974

Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1974

Judges Pensions Bill 1974

International Development Association (Further Payments) Bill 1974

Julius Dam Agreement Bill 1 974

King Island Shipping Service Agreement Bill 1974

Liquefied Gas (Road Vehicle Use) Tax Bill Bill 1 974

Liquefied Gas (Road Vehicle Use) Tax Collection Bill 1974

Livestock Slaughter Levy Bill 1974

Livestock Slaughter Levy Collection Bill 1 974

Loan Bill 1974

Loans (Australian Industry Development Corporation) Bill 1974

Loans (Australian National Airlines Commission) Bill 1974

Loans (Qantas Airways Limited) Bill 1974

Local Government Grants Bill 1 974

National Roads Bill 1974

Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Bill 1974

Nursing Homes Assistance Bill 1974

Papua New Guinea Bill 1 974

Papua New Guinea Bill (No. 2) 1974

Papua New Guinea Loan (International Bank) Bill 1974

Papua New Guinea Loans Guarantee Bill 1 974

Payroll Tax (Territories) Bill 1974

Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill 1974

Post and Telegraph Bill 1 974

Post and Telegraph Rates Bill 1974

Queensland Grant (Bundaberg Irrigation Works) Bill 1974

Queensland Grant (Clare Weir) Bill 1974

Queensland Grant (Proserpine Flood Mitigation) Bill 1974

Queensland Grant (Ross River Dam) Bill 1974

Roads Grants Bill 1974

Remuneration Tribunals Bill 1 974

Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill 1974

River Murray Waters Bill 1974

Seamen’s Compensation Bill 1974

Service and Executive of Process Bill 1974

Sewerage Agreements Bill 1974

Social Services Bill (No. 3) 1974

States Grants Bill 1974

States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill 1 974

States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill 1 974

States Grants (Beef Cattle Roads) Bill 1974

States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill 1974

States Grants ( Dwellings for Pensioners) Bill 1 974

States Grants (Fruitgrowing Reconstruction) Bill 1974

States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill 1 974

States Grants (Nature Conservation) Bill 1974

States Grants (Schools) Bill 1974

States Grants (Soil Conservation) Bill 1 974

States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill 1 974

States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Bill 1974

States Grants (Universities) Bill 1 974

States Grants ( Universities ) Bill ( No. 2 ) 1 974

States Grants (Water Resources Assessment) Bill 1974

Structural Adjustment (Loan Guarantees) Bill 1974

Tarcoola to Alice Springs Railway Bill 1 974

Taxation Administration Bill 1974

Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Bill 1974

Universities Commission Bill 1974

Wheat Industry Stabilisation Bill 1 974

Wheat Products Export Adjustment Bill 1 974

Wheat Export Charge Bill 1 974

Wool Industry Bill 1974

Wool Industry Bill (No. 2) 1974

Wool Marketing (Loan ) Bill 1 974

Wool Marketing (Loan) Bill (No. 2) 1974

Wool Tax Bill (No. 1) 1974

Wool Tax Bill (No. 2) 1974

Wool Tax Bill ( No. 3)1974

Wool Tax Bill (No. 4) 1974

Wool Tax Bill (No. 5) 1974

Appendix 2 29th PARLIAMENT 1974 GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION PROGRAM

Bills Rejected, Laid Aside or Deferred by the Senate (Against Government wish)

Double Dissolution Bills Rejected (Subsequently Affirmed at Joint Sitting)

Commonwealth Electoral Bill (No. 2) 1973

Senate ( Representation ofTerritories) Bill 1 973

Representation Bill 1973

Health Insurance Commission Bill 1 973

Health Insurance Bill 1973

Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill 1973

Other Bills (Minerals (Submerged Lands) Bill 1974 (Minerals (Submerged Lands) (Royalties) Bill 1974 -Second reading negatived 24 July 1 974 (Post and Telegraph Bill 1 974 (Post and Telegraph Rates Bill 1974 -Deferred 30 July 1974. . . until the Government introduces its Budget . . . subsequently replaced by new Budget Bills (National Health Bill 1974 ( Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill 1 974 (Health Insurance Levy Bill 1974 (Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1974 -Second reading negatived 1 August 1974 (Australian Industry Development Corporation Bill 1974 (National Investment Fund Bill 1974 -Second reading negatived 13 August 1974

Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1974 -Motion, that Bill be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting, negatived 15 August 1974; debate resumed and second reading negatived 24 September 1974

Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) 1974 -Deferred 1 5 August until first sitting day after1 September 1974; debate resumed and second reading negatived 24 September 1974.

Electoral Laws Amendment Bill 1974 -Second Reading negatived 28 November 1974 ( Broadcasting and Television Bill (No. 2 ) 1 974 ( Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Bill 1 974 (Television Stations Licence Fees Bill 1974 -Second Reading negatived 3 December 1974

Northern Territory (Stabilization of Land Prices) Bill 1974 -Motion for Second Reading amended on 10 December by inserting ‘. . . the Senate opposes this Bill and is of the opinion that . . . it should be referred to the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory . . . ( Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill 1 974 [No. 2] (Health Insurance Levy Bill 1974 [No. 2] (Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1974 [No. 3] -Second Reading negatived 1 1 December 1974

Appendix 3 29th PARLIAMENT 1974 GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION PROGRAM

Other Bills Introduced, Debate not concluded

Before the House of Representatives

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Bill 1974 -Passed by Senate with amendments yet to be considered by House of Representatives.

Australian Council Bill 1974

Electoral Bill 1974

Family Law Bill 1974 -Passed by Senate; further consideration by House of Representatives deferred until 1975.

Industries Assistance Commission Bill 1974

National Health Bill (No. 2) 1974 -Returned from Senate with amendments

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill 1 974 -Awaiting consideration by House of Representatives of Senate amendments

Remuneration and Allowances Bill 1 974 -Not to proceed

Before the Senate

Australian Film Commission Bill 1974 -Passed by both Houses but amendments made by House of Representatives disagreed to by Senate, which has referred to Committee to draw up reasons for advice to House of Representatives

Australian Housing Corporation Bill 1 974

Book Bounty Bill 1974

Corporations and Securities Industry Bill 1 974 -yet to be considered by House of Representatives National Compensation Bill 1974 -report on Clauses by Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs due 30 April 1 975

Racial Discrimination Bill 1974 [No. 2] -yet to be considered by House of Representatives

Refrigeration Compressors Bounty Bill 1 974

Stevedoring Industry Bill 1974

Superior Court of Australia Bill 1 974

Public Service Acts Amendment Bill 1974 -Passed by both Houses but amendments made by House of Representatives disagreed to by the Senate, which has referred to Committee to draw up reasons for advice to House of Representatives.

Appendix 4a 29th PARLIAMENT 1974

Bills Amended by the Senate (not by Government Initiative)

Financial Corporations Bill 1 974

National Health Bill 1974

Trade Practices Bill 1974

Roads Grants Bill 1974

National Roads Bill 1974

Australian Film Commission Bill 1974

Aged Persons Hostels Bill 1974

Public Service Acts Amendment Bill 1 974

Wool Industry Bill (No. 2) 1974

National Health Bill (No. 2) 1974

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Bill 1974

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill 1 974

Note- Nature of amendments and action taken are outlined in Appendix 4B

Appendix 4b 29th PARLIAMENT 1974 GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION PROGRAM

Action on Bills Amended by the Senate

Financial Corporations Bill 1974 -Four amendments on 31 July-1 August to include as an objective of the Bill ensuring an adequate level of finance available for housing and relating to Reserve Bank powers; agreed to by the House on 2 August.

National Health Bill 1974 -Two amendments on 1 August to provide for direct appeal to a Supreme Court against the Ministers decision and to remove provision for an injunction; agreed to by the House on 2 August.

Trade Practices Bill 1974 -Numerous amendments on 14-15 August, including qualifications and financial interests of members of the Commission, prohibiting giving effect to contracts only to the extent they are in restraint of trade, defining substantial control of a market, excluding dealings between related bodies corporate, exempting acquisition of assets in the ordinary course of business, requiring that the Court be satisfied that a person is involved in contravention before imposing a penalty, imposing a time limit for proceedings, and excusing a person from liability where he has acted honestly and reasonably in the circumstances; agreed to by the House on 23 August.

Roads Grants Bill 1974 -Two amendments on 16 August, disagreed to by the House on 23 August; Senate did not insist on its amendments and agreed on 17 September to alternative amendments made by the House; limiting Minister’s powers to require States to submit work programs and to require repayment of funds if States do work not in accordance with an approved program to urban arterial roads only; -Several amendments on 16 August to delete involvement of other Ministers and to allow for revocation of an approval only with the agreement of a State: agreed to by the House on 23 August.

National Roads Bill 1974 -Amendments on 16 August to require the Minister to enter into an agreement with a State before he may declare an export road or major commercial road; disagreed to by the House on 23 August, and not insisted on by Senate on 1 7 September: -Two amendments on 1 6 August to delete involvement of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development or his officers; agreed to by the House on 23 August.

Australian Film Commission Bill 1974 -Bill, introduced into the Senate, amended extensively on 23 and 24 October affecting the power of the Minister to give general directions to the Commission, deleting a requirement for exhibitors of films to exhibit some proportion of Australian short films and deleting a provision that full-time members of the Commission not have any direct or indirect pecuniary interests on the film industry; Bill amended by the House of Representatives on 20 November and disagreed to by the Senate on 3 December.

Aged Persons Hostels Bill 1 974 -Amendments on 28 November extending to five years the three year program; disagreed to by the House of Representatives on 2 December and not insisted on by the Senate on 3 December.

Public Service Acts Amendment Bill 1 974 -Bill, introduced in the Senate, amended on 3 December to insert new Pan of a new Schedules restoring the Oath or Affirmiation of Allegiance into the Public Service Act; further amended by the House of Representatives on 5 December; and disagreed to by Senate on 11 December; to be further considered by House of Representatives.

Wool Industry Bill (No. 2) 1974 -Amendments on S December deleting powers of direction to the Australian Wool Corporation by the Minister, reducing the proposed membership of the Corporation and removing the Corporation’s powers to obtain wool for aid programs and to process wool; disagreed to by the House of Representatives on 4 December; and not insisted on by Senate on 1 1 December.

National Health Bill (No. 2) 1974 -Amendments on S December deleting Ministerial powers in respect of transfer of funds by medical and hospital benefits organisations, omitting a new subsection relating to the conduct of medical and hospital benefits funds, directions to them by the Minister, examination of their records and the requisition of such funds; the deletion of a new Pan covering the conduct and supervision of the affairs of registered organisations and the deletion of a provision to extend full pharmaceutical benefits to friendly society dispensaries in Queensland and South Australia; awaiting consideration by the House of Representatives.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Bill 1974 -Bill, introduced in the Senate, amended on 10 December by deleting provisions which would have made it unnecessary for an Aboriginal or Islander to obtain a permit to enter and be on a Queensland Reserve and which would have prevented an Aboriginal or Islander from being removed from a Reserve if his conduct was not unreasonable; awaiting consideration by House of Representatives.

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill 1974 -Amended on 11 December to prevent acquisition of land reserved under a law of a State without the consent of the State, removing provision for ministerial approval of mining operations carried on in a park or reserve, providing that a concurrent State law is not limited, removing provision for international agreements relating to the protection or conservation of wildlife, and limiting the regulation of trade and commerce in connection with wildlife; awaiting consideration by the House of Representatives.

page 3449

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Murphy)- by leaveagreed 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 3449

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until a day and hour to be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees, and that the hour and day of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 3449

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– I move:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

This has been an auspicious year. It has perhaps in many ways been a lighter year than the year before, certainly for me. We have had a year in which the Queen opened the Parliament. We have had a year in which a great number of Bills have been introduced. We have had a double dissolution, we have had a Joint Sitting of the Parliament and for the first time the Parliament was televised. Prior to that we had the Joint Sitting case in the High Court. That certainly was the first time in a long time that the practices, the standing and the integrity of this Parliament were brought into question in the courts of this land; I think, with due respect to those who did that, regrettably so. It has been a period of very much joy to those who have gone through the difficult periods and triumphed. It has been a period of some despair to those who challenged and failed.

Tonight we celebrate a special occasion for 3 honourable senators in this Parliament, Senator Wood, Senator Wright and Senator Willesee. Having completed 25 years of service since first being elected as senators they are commencing their next quarter century of service. They seem all set to go for another quarter of a century. In his 25 years here Senator Wood has distinguished himself by his chairmanship of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee of the Senate, which I think has led to the establishment of the standing committees of the Senate. We all know how much those committees mean to us and how much they have transformed the working of the Senate. We know that he has been a man of integrity, steadfastness and independence. It is very nice to have amongst us this great parliamentarian.

Senator Willesee, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has had a long and distinguished career. He has been Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. He now goes out to carry Australia’s message to the world under the most challenging circumstances. I think he will do so with very great credit. We are pleased to have the Minister for Foreign Affairs amongst us and pleased that he stands so high in the regard of the nations of the world.

Senator Wright unfortunately is not with us tonight. I missed him during the debate on the

Family Law Bill. I am sure he would have had a great deal to contribute to the debate, most of which I would not have agreed with.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We still would have been on clause 13.

Senator MURPHY:

-I do not think it is quite correct that we would still have been on clause 13. Nevertheless Senator Wright, as we all know, has been a colourful figure here over the years. He is a representative from the State of Tasmania who has not been a shy violet. He also is entering his second quarter of a century. It is a great thing that in this Parliament we have 3 senators who have been so well regarded by the States which sent them here that they are still here after this very long time continuing to represent their States.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– How many of us will be here for our second quarter of a century?

Senator MURPHY:

-That is a matter for the electors. It is usual at this time to thank everyone who has helped. May I say on behalf of the Government that we are grateful to all who have, helped- the Hansard reporters, the attendants, people all around us, the Clerks, the people in the refreshment rooms, the attendants outside, the police. This building is like a small city.

Senator Withers:

– A naked city.

Senator MURPHY:

– May I say that we are grateful to ali of those who have helped to make it run. If, as the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) says, it is a naked city, it is up to us to alter that state of affairs. I will not dwell on the events of the last few days, but may I say that although we in this chamber fight against one another, we try to do our best for this nation. Sometimes we make mistakes, in the Opposition sometimes as well as in the Government. But I would hope that we would lift ourselves above the naked city and move into the land of milk and honey. If those opposite wish to have more biblical references I suggest they read more carefully the text which lies in all the motel rooms and they might themselves think more carefully before they ask some of the questions which they have asked in the last 3 days.

I did not want to be diverted in that way by the Leader of the Opposition. I would rather say that this is a time of cheer and good will when we are going off to enjoy ourselves. We all hope that the President, who is not here with us tonight, will recover and soon be with us. I should like to thank you, Mr Deputy President, for the way in which you have conducted the affairs of the Senate in the absence of the President. I think you have done extremely well, as has the acting Chairman of Committees. I invite all members of the Senate, men and women, to join us at a small function this evening without any great prolongation of this adjournment debate if the Leader of the Opposition, as I am sure he will, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will permit.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I suppose one would like at this stage to be able to second the motion. Here we are, at almost midnight, seeing the sessional period come to a close. Mr Deputy President may I commence by endorsing the remarks of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) in hoping that Senator Justin O’Byrne will have a speedy recovery and soon be back amongst us and also thank you for the way in which you have carried out your duties in this chamber. Senator Murphy referred to the fact that three of our honourable colleagues in this place have completed 25 years of service here. I mentioned yesterday, I think it was, that the Parliamentary Bill was Senator Wright’s silver anniversary present. Opposition colleagues of mine last night had a small function to celebrate Senator Wood’s anniversary. I offer my congratulations to Senator Willesee. Of course the day those honourable senators were elected to this Senate was a great day not only for them. Another senator was elected that day who is still in the Parliament, namely, the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) in another place. I understand that he came in on the same day. He unfortunately left this place for pastures not so green. It was also a very great day for other reasons. It was the great triumph for the Liberal Party after being formed for only some 4 years under Sir Robert Menzies. It was a day of great rejoicing throughout Australia. Even though the Labor Government has been here for only 2 years, it almost feels like 25 years. I suppose that this is not a time to talk about that. The wheel keeps turning, and this is the time for good cheer and to wish everyone well.

May I make special mention of a few. I would like to thank especially Senator Douglas McClelland for his help and co-operation. One of the things which has made a great deal of change to the Senate since we came back after the double dissolution has been the restoration of pairs and a more sensible arrangement around the chamber. To the Whips- Senator Young, Senator Poyser and Senator Maunsell- I would like to extend my thanks and the thanks of the Opposition. In the old days every time a salaries Bill came before us, as a very distinguished member of the ex- Whips union, as is our President and other honourable senators here, I always put in a plea for the Whips because I still believe that they are the hardest worked and the most underpaid members in the whole Parliament. Without the Whips this chamber would not function. I thank very much my colleagues, my deputy, and my very good friend, Senator Drake-Brockman, for their tolerance in putting up with my wrong decisions, my bad temper and, perhaps, my prolixity.

Senator Poyser:

– Your verbosity.

Senator WITHERS:

-Or, as the honourable senator has just said, my verbosity. He is quite right; I have caught the disease. I am generally noted for not saying much. I will not talk out time until midnight; I think it is about time we drew stumps. I thank everybody within the Parliament who has helped me and the Opposition and I wish everybody from you, Mr Deputy President, and honourable senators to the Clerks, and all those who are connected with the Parliament a merry Christmas and, under an incoming Liberal-Country Party Government, a prosperous new year.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia

– I have 4 minutes in which to say something. To you, Mr Deputy President, may I say thank you very much. I am very glad to see you shoulder responsibility as Deputy President of the Senate. We in this corner are very proud of you for the job you have done. To the people who have laboured behind the scenes to make this Parliament work I say thank you very much. To Mr Odgers and his officers and all the staff who work behind him I say that we in the Australian Country Party are very appreciative of the work they have done. I mention also those people who have worked during the past year whom we do not see but who make this Parliament operate.

Senator Murphy said that this has been an interesting year. Yes, it has been an interesting year but I wonder for whom it has been interesting. I do not think it has been an interesting year for the Government or one of which it could be proud, but that is being political. I am seldom political but I would like without stroking his back to thank Senator Reg Withers and his Party very much for the leadership they have given on this side of the Senate. I recognise the leadership that has been given on the other side of the Senate and appreciate the manner in which we have been able to talk together, because if we cannot talk together this Parliament cannot operate. That is all I say about that.

To Senator Don Willesee, whom I see sitting in the chamber, to Senator Ian Wood and Senator Wright who is not here, I offer congratulations upon their 25 years of service to the Parliament. I do not think I will make it, but I am very glad to see Senator Don Willesee still here because he lives in a part of Australia that counts. Every year for which he moves backwards and forwards between that part of the Commonwealth and this part of the Commonwealth to my mind is the equivalent of 3 years for any one else. I congratulate him on his 25 years service in this Parliament. I say to you, Mr Deputy President, to the officers of the Parliament and to everyone else that I wish you a merry Christmas and all the best of the season.

Thursday, 12 December 1974

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I want to refer very briefly to someone who will be leaving the Parliament in the next day or so. I refer to Miss Margery Morris of the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library. She is retiring at the end of this week. Miss Morris who is very well-known, of course, to all honourable senators was one of the first officers appointed to the Legislative Research Service when it was established in 1966. I think we all are aware that her special area has been in the field of economics. Honourable senators who have sought her assistance will recall with appreciation not only her ability in every field of economics and related matters but also will recall very appreciatively her ready cooperation and her understanding.

Miss Morris through her work within the Research Service has made a great contribution to the standard of parliamentary debate and also to the knowledge of senators and members. As someone closely involved with the establishment of this service in 1966,I am sure I speak on behalf of all honourable senators here this evening in extending to Miss Morris our sincere thanks and our best wishes for her retirement as well as a merry Christmas.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I acknowledge that at this time of the year it is customary for the salutations which have been offered to be made. I think it is proper that they should have been made. I rise because I recognise that this adjournment at any time, even on the last day of sitting, is an occasion to raise matters for which there has been no opportunity for debate at an earlier stage. We have known during the past fortnight of circumstances which have not been debated in this Senate because no convenient opportunity has arisen for that debate. I regret it. I rise simply to seek leave of the Senate to have incorporated in Hansard certain questions which would ordinarily be questions on notice. They are directed to Ministers of the Government with regard to the events of the last fortnight. They specifically, of course, relate to Dr Cairns and Senator Murphy and matters relating to Miss Morosi. I ask for leave to have 10 questions- they are questions only- incorporated in Hansard. If leave is not granted, I would use this opportunity to ask the questions with a view to having them known and, I would hope, answered at some stage in the recess. I ask for leave to have those questions incorporated in Hansard.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Is leave granted?

Honourable Senators; No

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I will put the question again. Is leave granted?

Honourable Senators; No

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Leave is not granted.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I have put the question twice. I now call Senator Greenwood.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- My understanding of the situation is that it is quite proper for any honourable senator to include in Hansard or to place on the notice paper any questions that he has.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-No. I am seeking leave to incorporate questions in Hansard. There will be no notice paper until next February or March.

Senator Murphy:

– That is a different situation. The notice paper will come out shortly. Surely the honourable senator can put the questions on notice in the ordinary way.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I will put the matter in order again. Finally I put to the Senate that Senator Greenwood seeks leave to incorporate certain questions in Hansard. Is leave granted?

Honourable Senators; No

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Leave is not granted.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-My first question is asked of the Attorney-General and Minister for Customs and Excise and it is as follows:

Is Senator Murphy aware of the public interest in the appointment of Mr D. Ditchburn to the Film Board of Review?

Are Mr Ditchburn ‘s qualifications as well as the reasons for his appointment legitimately a matter of public interest and properly to be made available as a matter of open government?

Why was Mr Ditchburn considered a proper appointment to the Film Board of Review?

Does Mr Ditchburn hold any, and if so what, position with Ethiopian Airlines? Is the position he holds with Ethiopian Airways a full-time position?

What, if any, background has Mr Ditchburn in the distribution or exhibition of films?

The second question which is directed to the Attorney-General, is as follows:

  1. Why did Senator Murphy decline to answer that part of the question without notice asked by Senator Greenwood on 1 1 December 1 974 which inquired if he would inform the Senate of any benefits received by him and his wife from Ethiopian Airways by way of free or concessional world travel or in other ways?

  2. What overseas trips have been made by

    1. Senator Murphy

    2. Mrs Ingrid Murphy on airlines tickets issued free or at concessional rates at the request of Ethiopian Airways on the basis of Mrs Murphy’s employment or engagment with Ethiopian Airways during:

    1. 1969
    2. 1970
    3. 1971
    4. 1972
    5. 1973
    6. 1974

The next question, which is also directed to the Attorney-General, is as follows:

  1. Did Senator Murphy and Mrs Murphy travel overseas in December 1973- January 1974. If so, where?
  2. Were the air tickets for such flight issued by Pan American Airways at the request of Ethopian Airways for their employee, Mrs Murphy?
  3. Were such tickets issued at a concessional fare rate? If so, what was the concession?
  4. Was the overseas trip official or private?

The next question, which is adddressed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, as is follows:

  1. Have any warrants in favour of Ethiopian Airways for overseas air travel been paid by the Commonwealth Government?
  2. Over what period have such warrants been paid?
  3. What were the warrants in each case and what amounts were paid?

The next question is directed to the AttorneyGeneral, and it is as follows:

Is it a fact that the Attorney-General has employed Mrs Luz Dungca in his household since her entry into Australia?

Was any arrangement made for her employment before she left the Philippines?

If so, what was the arrangement?

On what grounds of admission under the Government’s immigration policy did she enter Australia?

What representations did the Attorney-General make to secure her admission to Australia?

The next question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, is as follows:

  1. Have any moneys received by Qantas from the Commonwealth Government for overseas travel warrants been the subject of inter airline arrangements with Ethopian Airlines?
  2. If yes, what amounts, if any, have been paid or allowed to Ethopian Airlines by Qantas in respect of travel on warrants payable by Commonwealth Government in each of the years 1969 to 1974 inclusive?

The next question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, is as follows:

  1. Does Senator Murphy as Attorney-General have the exclusive power to appoint civil celebrants of marriage?
  2. What is the source of the power?
  3. What criteria does the Attorney-General apply to determine who should be appointed as civil celebrants?
  4. Are persons wishing to become celebrants invited to apply for appointment? If so, to whom is the invitation extended and how is it extended?
  5. If not, how are the persons who are appointed celebrants selected?

The next question is as follows:

  1. Was Junie Morosi at any time an applicant for a position with Qantas?
  2. Was any investigation made as to her suitability for the position she sought?
  3. Was the result of the investigation at any time made available to Dr Cairns or to Senator Murphy?
  4. If so, when and on whose initiative?

The next question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, is as follows:

  1. Apart from religious celebrants of marriage and civil celebrants who are State Government officials who are the present civil celebrants of marriage?
  2. Of the civil celebrants of marriage identified in the answer to the preceding part of this question which of them were appointed by the Attorney-General?
  3. Is it known what amount of fees each civil celebrant has received?
  4. Are such celebrants under any obligation to account for their fees or to disclose the total amounts received?

The final question is as follows:

  1. Is there an organization of persons appointed as civil celebrants of marriage?
  2. Is the Attorney-General a patron of the organization?
  3. Who are the office bearers of the organization?
  4. When was the organization formed and for what purpose was it formed?
  5. Who are the present members of the organization?

Those are the questions. I have chosen this quite unusual course because there will be no notice paper on which these questions can be placed until the Senate is about to resume, whenever that be next February or March. I think these are matters of public interest which ought to be looked at by the Ministers to whom they are directed and by whom answers should be given in the public interest.

We know that this is a government which when it was in Opposition claimed that open government was the right and entitlement of all Australians. I would hope that now it is in Government it would be no less eager to uphold the principle when it is brought to its attention. I know that questions on notice- certainly questions on notice lodged by me- have been on the notice paper for over 12 months and unless they have been answered in the batch which was provided tonight I have not been successful in obtaining the information. I think it does not reflect credit upon the Government that when I raised this matter within the last week I was simply told in effect that the Government has better things to do than to answer my questions. I simply feel that unless persons in this place are prepared to persist, to raise their questions, to look for the answers and to do it because they believe that people in Australia have a right to know, this Parliament is not providing for those who are members of it the proper facilities which it should have. I have used the adjournment on this occasion for that purpose.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– May I say that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Senator Greenwood, has used the adjournment debate despicably and contrary to the arrangements which I am informed had been made between the Government and the Opposition, that this kind of behaviour which has been exhibited -

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- Order! I do not think you should use the word ‘despicable’ in this instance. The honourable senator took the opportunity to speak on the adjournment debate, which is his entitlement.

Senator MURPHY:

– Let me say that he has used the forms of the House in a way that is inconsistent with the arrangements made between the Government and the Opposition. He has chosen to mention names. I was informed by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Douglas McClelland) that this kind of conduct by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would for once be not indulged in. I have not heard the questions asked by Senator Greenwood becuase I have been outside the chamber most of the time, but so far as I am concerned no answers will be given to the questions which he has asked. If he chooses to put the questions on notice in the ordinary way consideration will be given to answering them. His conduct seems a bit strange in view of the way that the business is conducted here and also the fact that the utmost opportunity was given to him to ask the questions. He was here. Some of the questions, I understand, were addressed to me. I was here, but he chose not to direct them to me when I was in the House and when he had a full opportunity to ask me the questions so that I could answer them. He also had the chance to speak on the adjournment debate last night. Instead he chose in an unprecedented way to read the questions into a speech on the adjournment debate.

Senator Greenwood:

– You limit question time to an hour.

Senator MURPHY:

– Today question time ran over and was more than the normal hour. I stayed here today in order to answer questions. I ought to have been at a ceremony in the High Court for the late Sir Douglas Menzies but I thought that honourable senators opposite might have some questions to address to me so I stayed here yet the Deputy Leader of the Opposition chose not to address questions to me. At the request of the Deputy President question time was extended. I do not think it is altogether decent and honourable for the honourable senator to do this. As I say, I do not know the content of his questions because I walked out of the House when he was asking them. Despite this unfortunate interlude may I say to you, Mr Deputy President, on behalf of the Government, that we wish you well and we issue an invitation to you to come and join us at a function.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– by leave- I am sure that Senator Murphy in closing the debate was in essence replying immediately to the questions which were put. I envisaged that yesterday I would attend this House and vote to give the Opposition the full opportunity to debate the issues which had been very well publicised over the weekend. I was very greatly surprised yesterday when the House was not called upon to enter into that debate. The only proper way for the Opposition to attack the question and to attack the Government was to do so directly, by putting its case to the Government and asking for a direct reply to its charges. This has not been done. Yesterday as an observer of tactics I was staggered to find the Opposition retreating from its obligation following the publicity of the weekend. Not knowing the rights or wrongs of the matter I find it even more strange tonight, at a time when there is no possibility of answering the charges which are made in such volume, that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Greenwood) raised them by innuendo. I do not offer an opinion on the charges; I have not been given the basis of them by the Opposition and I cannot. Therefore my position as one who would have helped- I would have had a vital vote in this House- is that I am left just as ignorant of the charges as I was last weekend. I say this of the Opposition: It really dropped the ball in a very big way in the light of its responsibility to its claim. The Opposition’s standards have not been raised by Senator Greenwood ‘s remarks tonight.

In speaking to the valedictory message on the adjournment let me say that, wherever I can, I leave this sort of message to my deputy. However, in this House I do not have a deputy and I wanted to rise and say how much I appreciated making contacts in my first session in this House. I thank both sides for the assistance they have given me in getting the legislation through. I look forward to the work next session. I have liked this one so much that I intend to come back.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster) I accept the remarks that have been made by the Leaders of the Parties and by honourable senators. I accept their thanks to the staff of the Senate. I know that the feelings embrace everyone who works within the Senate to make it the efficient chamber that it is. On behalf of the President I thank the Senate. I know that the man in whose position I act at the present time would have me wish you all a most pleasant Christmas and a very healthy and bright opening to 1975.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The Senate adjourned at 12.18 a.m. to a day and hour to be fixed by Mr President.

page 3455

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Members (Question No. 240)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. Who are the present members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.
  2. When was each member first and last appointed.
  3. 3 ) What is the term of office of each member.
  4. Was the Minister aware at the time of their appointment whether any of the members of the Commission were (a) members of any, and if so, what political pany and (b) supporters of any, and if so, what political party.
  5. ) If the answer to any pan of (4) is in the negative, did the Minister make any enquiries as to whether the proposed members had political affiliations; if so, what did the enquiries reveal.
  6. Does membership or support of the Australian Labor Party prevent or inhibit a Commissioner from discharging his obligations as a Commissioner.
  7. What were the qualifications of each Commissioner for his appointment to the Commission.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

(1)-

Professor Richard Ivan Downing, B.A., Dip. EcChairman.

Dr William Earle Reginald Hackett, B.A., M.D., M.A., M.C.P.A., M.R.A.C.P., F.A.C.M.A.-Vice-Chairman.

Mr Angus James Smith, O.B.E.

Mrs Dorothy Edna Annie Edwards, O.B.E:

Mr Henry Souttar Lodge, LLB.

Mr Malcolm Anthony Kyle Thompson, M.I.Mech.E., M.I.E.Aust.

Mr Harold Francis Lashwood, J.P.

Mr Kevin George Jacobson.

Mr Albert Edward Harris.

  1. –

Professor R. I. Downing appointed I July 1 973.

Mr A. J. Smith first appointed1 July 1967; last reappointed 1 January 1972.

Mrs D. Edwards first appointed 16 August 1962; last reappointed 1 July 1972.

Mr H. S. Lodge appointed 3 August 1 972.

Mr M. A. K. Thompson appointed 2 1 September 1 972.

Dr Earle Hackett appointed Commissioner 26 July 1 973- appointed Vice-Chairman 7 September 1974.

Mr H. F. Lashwood appointed 9 January 1973.

Mr K. Jacobson appointed 7 September 1 974.

Mr A. E. Harris appointed 7 September 1974.

  1. In terms of the present provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act each Commissioner shall be appointed for a period of 3 years but shall be eligible for reappointment. The present terms of office of the Commissioners are:

Professor R. I. Downing- 1 July 1 973 to 30 June 1 976.

Mr A. J. Smith- 1 January 1 972 to 3 1 December 1 974.

Mrs D. Edwards- 1 July 1972 to 30 June 1975.

Mr H. S. Lodge-3 August 1 972 to 2 August 1 975.

Mr M. A. K. Thompson-21 September 1972 to 20 September 1975.

Dr Earle Hackett-26 July 1 973 to 25 July 1 976.

Mr H. F. Lashwood-9 January 1 973 to 8 January 1 976.

Mr K. Jacobsen-7 September 1 974 to 6 September 1 977.

Mr A. E. Harris;7 September 1 974 to 6 September 1 977. (4)I knew of my own knowledge that Mr Lashwood was a member of the Australian Labor Party at the time of his appointment. I also knew of my own knowledge that he was President of Actors and Announcers Equity, and in conformity with Government policy that there should be a member of the trade union movement appointed to Government statutory boards and Commissions Mr Lashwood was appointed.

  1. I do not know whether any of the other members of the Commission are members of any political party, although one of them who was appointed by the previous Government has told me he was a member of the Liberal Party. Whether he still is or not I do not know. (6)I would not think so.
  2. At the time of their respective appointments I released a press statement setting out the qualifications of the Commissioners appointed by this Government. Each of them has various skills and qualifications, warranting appointment to the Commission.

Battered Children (Question No. 177)

Senator Baume:

asked the minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Is there a system for bringing to the attention of authorities cases of the ‘battered child syndrome’ occurring in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.
  2. How many such cases are known to have occurred in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory in each of the past five years.
  3. Do the numbers of cases reported represent a true measure of the problem in the Territories.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)I refer the honourable member to my reply to Question on Notice No. 1 79.

  1. There are approximately two cases per year in the Australian Capital Territory. In the Northern Territory the only information available is from Darwin Hospital where there have been three proven and three suspected cases in the last five years.
  2. 3 ) It is probable that there are unsuspected cases.

Battered Children (QuestionNo. 178)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What are the sources of referrals of cases ofbattered child syndrome’ in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory and how many referrals in the past five years have come respectively from: (a) general practitioners, (b) dentists, (c) lawyers, (d) hospitals, (e) welfare agencies, (f) police, (g) teachers and (h) others.

Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

Cases have been referred by general practitioners, hospitals, infant welfare sisters, social workers, and police. However the detailed information sought is not available.

Battered Children (Question No. 179)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Are there systems in existence in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory adequate to allow comprehensive reporting of cases of the ‘battered child syndrome’; if not, what changes of procedure are planned to make the system of reporting more adequate.

Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

No systems for comprehensive reporting of cases exist. Experience with notification of infectious disease suggests that if the syndrome were to be made notifiable there would be under-reporting to such an extent that few sufferers would benefit. One feasible alternative might be to adapt medical record linkage systems, once established, to alert the authorities to cases of repeated injury to the same child or to siblings. All cases would then be identifiable,’ however, the medico-legal problems inherent in this proposal have yet to be overcome.

Battered Children (Question No. 180)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What educational programs are in existence to make doctors, dentists, lawyers, social workers, child health and community nurses, police officers, teachers and others aware of the incidence, problems, and best management for battered children and their families.
  2. What number of people from each of the sub-groups in ( 1 ) have been exposed to each of the programs in each of the past five years.
  3. What preventive health programs exist in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory to predict families at risk of having a battered child.
  4. What programs of intervention exist to protect children expected to be at risk as a result of such prediction.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The difficulties of recognition and management of this syndrome have been considered by the Child Health Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council on several occasions since 1968. In 1973 Council recommended that education programs in case detection and management should be prepared for those involved in health education and welfare of young children. There is now ongoing inservice training for these personnel in the Australian Capital Territory; for example, seminars on the subject have been conducted for staff at health centres.
  2. ) This information is not available.
  3. and (4) Research into whether families at risk can be identified after the birth of the first child is being considered.

Battered Children (Question No. 181)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What facilities exist in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory for management of families with a battered child.
  2. Are the facilities adequate; if not, what is required to make the facilities adequate.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Facilities in the Australian Capital Territory are the Welfare Branch of the Department of the Capital Territory, the Mental Health Branch and Child Health Section of A.C.T. Health Services, the A.C.T. Police Department and the Department of Education Counselling Services. Facilities in the Northern Territory are available through the Department of Health.
  2. These facilities are adequate in terms of present knowledge and resources. However, continuing assessment of sociological problems is deficient. One recent move to relieve this deficiency is the establishment of a social psychiatry research unit at the National University with the support of the NH and MRC. I have also approved support for new training programs in epidemiology, community medicine and occupational health.

Federal File’ (Question No. 204)

Senator Poyser:

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

Will the Minister state what Parliamentarians, trade union officials, industrialists and other public figures have appeared on the TCN 9 television program ‘Federal File’ in the period May 1974 to date?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

The following is a list of Parliamentarians, trade union officials, industrialists and other public figures who appeared on the TCN 9 television program ‘Federal File’ during the period S May to 29 September 1974.

Australia in Facts and Figures’ (Question No. 235)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the mailing list for the booklet ‘Australia in Facts and Figures’, published by the Australian Information Service, been closed; if so, why.
  2. 2 ) Is publication of the booklet to cease; if so, why.
  3. Has the booklet provided a useful public service, in a convenient form, over a considerable period of time.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Much of the information provided in the past by ‘Australia in Facts and Figures’, is now available from other sources. Publication will therefore be discontinued in order to conserve funds for other purposes.
  2. ‘Australia in Facts and Figures’ has been well received by the public.

Electoral: Employment of Labor Party Supporters (Question No. 292)

Senator Withers:

asked the Minister for Abor iginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Which persons appointed since December 1972 from outside the Australian Public Service to Boards, Commissions and Statutory Authorities under the Minister’s responsibility are members of the Australian Labor Party or who, prior to the 1972 election, publicly advocated the return of a Labor Government.
  2. What salary and allowances are paid to each such appointee.
  3. What, if any, additional staff and facilities have been provided for each such appointee.
  4. What was the cost of such staff and facilities in the years ending (a) 30 June 1973 and (b) 30 June 1974.
  5. What is the estimated cost of such staff and facilities for the year ending 30 June 1 975.
Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to ( 5) See the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 302 (Hansard of 3 1 October 1974, p. 498).

Prime Minister’s Overseas Visit (Question No. 345)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What will be the itinerary of the Prime Minister during his forthcoming overseas trips.

Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

See my answer on 19 November 1974 (Hansard, House of Representatives, pp. 3630-1 ).

Prime Minister’s Overseas Visit (Question No. 346)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What will be the cost of hiring aircraft for the Prime Minister’s forthcoming overseas trips.
  2. ) What will be the cost of these trips.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The information is not available until a visit has been completed and all charges have been determined.

Prime Minister’s Overseas Visits (Question No. 347)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many overseas trips has the Prime Minister made since assuming office.
  2. What was the date of departure from, and return to, Australia on each occasion.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) See my answer on 24 September 1 974 ( House of Representatives Hansard, pages 1754-5). Later, from 27 September to 13 October, I visited Rarotonga for the South Pacific Conference, Honolulu for discussions with the CommanderinChief Pacific, New York for the United Nations General Assembly, Washington for discussions with President Ford, Ottawa for discussions with Prime Minister

Australia in Facts and Figures’ (Question No. 235)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the mailing list for the booklet ‘Australia in Facts and Figures’, published by the Australian Information Service, been closed; if so, why.
  2. 2 ) Is publication of the booklet to cease; if so, why.
  3. Has the booklet provided a useful public service, in a convenient form, over a considerable period of time.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Much of the information provided in the past by ‘Australia in Facts and Figures’, is now available from other sources. Publication will therefore be discontinued in order to conserve funds for other purposes.
  2. ‘Australia in Facts and Figures’ has been well received by the public.

Electoral: Employment of Labor Party Supporters (Question No. 292)

Senator Withers:

asked the Minister for Abor iginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Which persons appointed since December 1972 from outside the Australian Public Service to Boards, Commissions and Statutory Authorities under the Minister’s responsibility are members of the Australian Labor Party or who, prior to the 1972 election, publicly advocated the return of a Labor Government.
  2. What salary and allowances are paid to each such appointee.
  3. What, if any, additional staff and facilities have been provided for each such appointee.
  4. What was the cost of such staff and facilities in the years ending (a) 30 June 1973 and (b) 30 June 1974.
  5. What is the estimated cost of such staff and facilities for the year ending 30 June 1 975.
Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to ( 5) See the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 302 (Hansard of 3 1 October 1974, p. 498).

Prime Minister’s Overseas Visit (Question No. 345)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What will be the itinerary of the Prime Minister during his forthcoming overseas trips.

Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

See my answer on 19 November 1974 (Hansard, House of Representatives, pp. 3630-1 ).

Prime Minister’s Overseas Visit (Question No. 346)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What will be the cost of hiring aircraft for the Prime Minister’s forthcoming overseas trips.
  2. ) What will be the cost of these trips.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The information is not available until a visit has been completed and all charges have been determined.

Prime Minister’s Overseas Visits (Question No. 347)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many overseas trips has the Prime Minister made since assuming office.
  2. What was the date of departure from, and return to, Australia on each occasion.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) See my answer on 24 September 1 974 ( House of Representatives Hansard, pages 1754-5). Later, from 27 September to 13 October, I visited Rarotonga for the South Pacific Conference, Honolulu for discussions with the CommanderinChief Pacific, New York for the United Nations General Assembly, Washington for discussions with President Ford, Ottawa for discussions with Prime Minister

Australia in Facts and Figures’ (Question No. 235)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the mailing list for the booklet ‘Australia in Facts and Figures’, published by the Australian Information Service, been closed; if so, why.
  2. 2 ) Is publication of the booklet to cease; if so, why.
  3. Has the booklet provided a useful public service, in a convenient form, over a considerable period of time.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Much of the information provided in the past by ‘Australia in Facts and Figures’, is now available from other sources. Publication will therefore be discontinued in order to conserve funds for other purposes.
  2. ‘Australia in Facts and Figures’ has been well received by the public.

Electoral: Employment of Labor Party Supporters (Question No. 292)

Senator Withers:

asked the Minister for Abor iginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Which persons appointed since December 1972 from outside the Australian Public Service to Boards, Commissions and Statutory Authorities under the Minister’s responsibility are members of the Australian Labor Party or who, prior to the 1972 election, publicly advocated the return of a Labor Government.
  2. What salary and allowances are paid to each such appointee.
  3. What, if any, additional staff and facilities have been provided for each such appointee.
  4. What was the cost of such staff and facilities in the years ending (a) 30 June 1973 and (b) 30 June 1974.
  5. What is the estimated cost of such staff and facilities for the year ending 30 June 1 975.
Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to ( 5) See the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 302 (Hansard of 3 1 October 1974, p. 498).

Prime Minister’s Overseas Visit (Question No. 345)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What will be the itinerary of the Prime Minister during his forthcoming overseas trips.

Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

See my answer on 19 November 1974 (Hansard, House of Representatives, pp. 3630-1 ).

Prime Minister’s Overseas Visit (Question No. 346)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What will be the cost of hiring aircraft for the Prime Minister’s forthcoming overseas trips.
  2. ) What will be the cost of these trips.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The information is not available until a visit has been completed and all charges have been determined.

Prime Minister’s Overseas Visits (Question No. 347)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many overseas trips has the Prime Minister made since assuming office.
  2. What was the date of departure from, and return to, Australia on each occasion.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) See my answer on 24 September 1 974 ( House of Representatives Hansard, pages 1754-5). Later, from 27 September to 13 October, I visited Rarotonga for the South Pacific Conference, Honolulu for discussions with the CommanderinChief Pacific, New York for the United Nations General Assembly, Washington for discussions with President Ford, Ottawa for discussions with Prime Minister

Trudeau, Suva for Fiji’s Centenary of Cession and Norfolk Island for its Bi-Centenary Celebrations.

Prime Minister’s Overseas Visits (Question No. 348)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What has been the cost of hiring aircraft from Qantas Airways Ltd for use by the Prime Minister on overseas trips during 1974.

Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

Two charters are involved, the net cost being $205,866.60.

Whitlam Ministry: Overseas Visits (Question No. 349)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Which Ministers have travelled overseas since December 1972.
  2. How many trips have been made by each Minister.
  3. 3 ) What has been the cost of each trip.
  4. How many persons accompanied the Ministers.
  5. What has been the total cost of overseas ministerial trips since the Government assumed office.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (4) Information on overseas visits commenced between 2 December 1972 and 16 July 1974 was given on 23 August 1973 (House of Representatives Hansard page 381) and on 2 August 1 974 ( House of Representatives Hansard page 1 108).

Details of overseas visits commenced between 16 July and 13 November 1974 (the date of the question) are as follows:

  1. and (5) The Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1973-1974 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) 1974-1975 show, against the Department of the Special Minister of State, expenditure for the preceding financial years for overseas travel by Ministers (including personal staff). The cost of other travel is shown in the Bills against the appropriate departments. Costs are not recorded in accordance with the breakdown requested by the honourable senator.

Aboriginal Demonstration (Question No. 359)

Senator Withers:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Following the demonstration by Aborigines outside Parliament House on 30 October 1974, were some Aborigines unable to return to their home locations that evening.
  2. Were any Aborigines accommodated in Canberra at public expense following the demonstration; if so (a) how many, (b) where were they accommodated, (c) for how long were they provided with accommodation at public expense, and (d) what wasthecost.
  3. Were any Aborigines returned to their home locations at public expense; if so (a) how many, (b) what was the mode of transport used, and (c) what was the cost.
Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) I am not aware whether some Aboriginals were unable to return to their home locations on the evening of 30 October 1 974.I believe, however, that some did not return home on that evening.
  2. No.
  3. No.

Prime Minister’s Overseas Visits (Question No. 366)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What would be the cost of the Prime Minister’s forthcoming overseas trips if BAC 1 1 1 aircraft of the VIP fleet were used.

Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

See my answer on 28 November 1974 (House of Representatives Hansard pp. 4224-5).

Prime Minister’s Forthcoming Overseas Visit (Question No. 367)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What would be the cost of airfares if the Prime Minister’s party travelled by commercial airlines during his forthcoming overseas trips.

Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

It is not practicable, having regard to the convenience of host governments in the countries concerned, to plan an itinerary based on travel by commercial airlines.

Use of VIP Aircraft by Prime Ministers (Question No. 368)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What was the cost of VIP aircraft for the use of, or used by, the Prime Minister in (a) 1972, (b) 1973 and (c) 1974 to 14 November 1974.

Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. 1972-

Mr McMahon $ 1 76,287

Mr Whitlam $3,703

  1. 1973- $128,160 (c)1974-$222,704(to 14 November 1974).

The above costs have been calculated using the flying hour rates on which recoveries from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet have been based for the periods concerned. These rates recover the cost of fuel, spares, tyres and tubes, and contractor servicing.

The trips costed above are all those on which the Prime Minister was carried, plus any related aircraft positioning flights.

Prime Minister’s Overseas Visits (Question No. 373)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it the practice of the Prime Minister to take a consultary physician with him whenever he travels overseas.
  2. Does the Prime Minister do this because some illness indicates that it is prudent for him to have a doctor with him at times of travel overseas.
  3. How many doctors have travelled overseas with the Prime Minister.
  4. How many overseas trips have the doctors made.
  5. What is the rate of remuneration paid to doctors travelling overseas with the Prime Minister.
  6. What has been the total cost of having a doctor travel with the Prime Minister.
  7. 7 ) Was it the practice of former Prime Ministers to take a doctor with them overseas.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, as was the practice of my predecessors.
  2. No:
  3. One, the same doctor on each occasion.
  4. Eight.
  5. Honorarium of$65 per day.
  6. $13,444.26.
  7. See(l).

Middle East Countries: Budget Expenditure (Question No. 385)

Senator Carrick:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Did the publication, Australian Foreign Affairs Record, state in its August 1974 edition that the Saudi Arabian Budget expenditure on its Ministry of Defence and Aviation had risen from $1.9 billion in 1973-74 to $3.1 billion in 1974-75?
  2. What are the main items of additional expenditure involved, in terms of (a) men; (b) equipment and (c) other items?
  3. what are the comparable Budget increases for each of the other oil-producing countries of the Middle East for the period referred to in ( 1 )?
  4. What are the comparable Budget expenditures for Israel for the period referred to in (1 )?
Senator Willesee:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Details of the main items of additional envisaged expenditure are not available.
  3. Comparable budget increases for each of the other oilproducing countries of the Middle East are as follows:
  1. Israel 1973 $US 1 , 474; 1 974, $US3,688.

Source: Military Balance 1974-75 from International Institute of Strategic Studies, September 1974.

Effect of Wages and Tariffs on Prices (Question No. 388)

Senator Carrick:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1) In view of the public statement of the Prime Minister that sections of the trade union movement are conspiring with employers to force higher prices, what specific evidence can the Government produce to support the charge, which is a serious accusation against the trade unions.
  2. Will the Prime Minister provide the Senate with this evidence.
  3. If the Prime Minister cannot provide such evidence will he, on behalf of the Government, withdraw the accusation.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1), (2) and (3) My comments at the Brisbane Press Club on 29 November 1974, to which the question refers, did not use the wordsconspiring with employers’. I did, however, refer to instances of firms taking up identical positions with individual trade unions or sections of the trade union movement in some industries. This has occurred, for example, in the matter of consent wage agreements which, in most cases, are taken along to arbitral authorities for endorsement, and also in the area of tariff protection. I believe both these factors are currently causing prices to be higher than they otherwise would be.

In the case of the Prices Justification Tribunal’s inquiry and report on proposed increases in interstate freight rates by Mayne Nickless Limited, I drew attention to the disallowance by the Tribunal of certain wage increases in the Mayne Nickless submission. Commenting on the Tribunal’s report, I stated that the Government was pleased the Tribunal had acted in accord with the spirit of the Government’s invitation to the Tribunal to scrutinise with care price claims that are based on wage costs in excess of awards.

As the Tribunal pointed out in that report in respect of the over-award consent agreement involved: ‘This is a burden which should properly be borne by those who agreed to the increases in wages, rather than by requiring the community at large to carry the entire amount’.

In my statement on the economy on 12 November last, I pointed out that the problems of the rapid rise in unemployment and continuing steep rise in prices and costs are interlocked. I also made the point that employees can price themselves out of the market as effectively as business can. and there are signs that this is happening.

On the matter of tariff protection, I was referring to cases where trade unions, in those industries competing with imports, had tended to put jobs before price considerations. I cited the Leyland situation as an example. However, neither displaced workers nor the Government could view with equanimity the rapid surge of imports experienced in the past year or so.

On 9 December I announced the Government’s program of action for 1975 aimed at reducing current pressures from import competition on employment in certain industries. The programwill be based on selective reviews of those industries with demonstrable import problems.

Cost of Cars used by Mr A. J. Grassby 1973-74 (Question No. 391)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With regard to the answer to House of Representatives Question No. 1343 (vide Hansard, 19 November 1974, page 3733), how was the cost of $51,000 estimated in respect of the use of Government cars during 1973-74 by Mr A. J. Grassby.
  2. On a mileage cost, what was the cost per mile, and how many miles were driven to incur this cost. .
  3. On a time cost, what was the cost per hour and how many hours were driven to incur this cost.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The cost of approximately $5 1 , 000 for cars used by Mr A. J. Grassby during 1973-74 was not estimated. It was calculated from transport documents held in the Departments of Manufacturing Industry and Services and Property. The exact cost was $51,131.80 and this figure was rounded for convenience in my answer on 19 November 1974 (House of Representatives Hansard, page 3733).
  2. and (3) Details of miles driven and drivers’ hours can only be obtained by a costly search of the records of the abovenamed departments. Such expenditure of time and effort is considered unwarranted. The rates for mileage and drivers’ time which applied during 1973-74 are set out below:
  1. until 2 April 1974.
  2. from 3 April 1974.

Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd

Senator Murphy:
ALP

– On 16 October 1974, Senator Milliner asked me the following question, without notice:

Can the Attorney-General indicate whether Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd accepted financial investments almost up to the day on which it was announced that the company was in the hands of a receiver? Will the Minister ascertain whether the aforementioned circumstance is substantially correct? If so, is the acceptance of financial investments in such a circumstance legal?

In reply I said that I would have inquiries made about the company’s operations and would inform the Senate as much as it could properly be informed about the matter.

I should recall, for the benefit of Senators, that a Receiver was appointed in Sydney in respect of the company’s property on Monday, 30 September 1974. I understand that a prospectus dated 6 May 1974 had been issued by the company seeking investment by the public in the company’s securities, and this was withdrawn only on Friday, 27 September 1974 by notice given by the company to the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission. The company’s Receiver has advised that investments were being received in the company’s branch offices from the public up until Wednesday, 25 September 1974, on the afternoon of which day an instruction was issued by the secretary of the company that no further investments were to be accepted. I understand that all investments received up until 25 September 1974 were retained by the company.

The question whether the acceptance by the company of investments in these circumstances was legal is one upon which I should not express any opinion to the Senate. That question can only be determined by a Court in the light of the applicable law and all the relevant circumstances.

I understand that the affairs of the company, which is incorporated in New South Wales, are under investigation by the Corporate Affairs Commission of that State.

Third World

Senator Willesee:
ALP

– On 13 November 1974, Senator Sim asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs the following question, without notice:

Is he aware that the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Cairns, has again been reported to have stated that he regarded Australia as a honorary member of the Third World and that it is up to the Third World whether Australia is accepted as a member? Is this Government policy? If so, why has the Parliament not been advised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs?

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

The Deputy Prime Minister made the comments referred to while he was at the Ministerial meeting of the International Bauxite Association held recently in Georgetown, Guyana. As the honourable senator is aware Australia was a founding member of the IBA. Almost all other members of the Association are regarded as part of what is commonly termed the Third World, and it is in this context that the Deputy Prime Minister made his comments.

Australia cannot in any formal sense become a member of the Third World, because it is a generic term used to describe the developing nations of the world that are neither major powers nor industrialised countries. In describing Australia as an honorary member of the Third World the Deputy Prime Minister intended to underline the fact that since coming to power in 1972 the Government has shown a much greater awareness of and involvement with many issues of concern to countries of the Third World.

Specifically the Australian Government’s policies on a number of issues such as colonialism, racism, development questions and peace zone proposals are in essential agreement with those adopted by the countries of the Third World. On many of these issues Australia has acted in concert with or sought the close support of members of the Third World.

Industries Assistance Commission

Senator Murphy:
ALP

– On 28 November 1974 Senator Drake-Brockman asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning the Industries Assistance Commission. The Prime Minister has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I refer the honourable senator to the exchange of letters between Mr Rattigan and myself incorporated in my answer to a question without notice on this subject on 27 November 1 974 (House of Representatives Hansard, pp. 4132-35).

Economic Advice and Information

Senator Murphy:
ALP

– On 26 November 1974 Senator Cotton asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice which referred to a number of matters including whether it was the Prime Minister’s intention to hold monthly talks with the Reserve Bank and the Treasury and the position regarding publication of Treasury papers. The Prime Minister has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I already receive advice on the economic situation from a number of sources including the Reserve Bank and the Treasury and I propose to continue to receive that advice on a regular basis.

Insofar as making advice from the Reserve Bank and Treasury available to Parliament is concerned, the established practice- which I do not intend to depart from- has been for the conclusions that the Government comes to on the basis of the advice provided to it to be conveyed to the Parliament from time to time in the form of economic policy statements.

In relation to your question on Treasury publications, it is not true that the present Government has not permitted the Treasury to continue the publication of information booklets containing reviews of various aspects of economic and monetary policy. In fact, the opposite is the case, although one particular issue of one publication- the annual economic survey for 1 974- was not proceeded with due to timetable problems associated with the May election and the September Budget. The amount of regular commentary and information booklets has been greatly expanded since 1972. In particular, the Treasury has published, on a monthly basis since February 1973, the ‘Round-up of Economic Statistics’ which contains a summary of the major economic statistics released each month. This publication supplements the quarterly

Treasury Information Bulletin, which has been expanded to include, from time to time, special articles on topical issues, the first of which appeared in January 1973. Statements attached to the Budget Speech have also been expanded to provide additional information to Members of Parliament and the public generally in those Budgets presented by this Government. Furthermore, at weekly intervals during the past three months, the Treasury has been publishing a series of Taxation Papers based upon its submissions to the Taxation Review Committee.

Questionnaire Circulated to Teachers

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-On 5 December 1974, Senator Rae asked me a question without notice about a questionnaire circulated to school teachers.

I have now been informed by my colleague the Minister for Education that the questions raised by Senator Rae refer to a survey of further needs in education and attitudes to current Australian Government programs conducted on behalf of the Schools Commission by a firm of research consultants as a minor part of the Commission’s many faceted information gathering process. The survey involved the administration of an interview questionnaire by the research firm ANOP (Australian National Opinion Polls) and a mail questionnaire by researchers of Arthur Meadows and Co.

The mail questionnaire was administered to a representative sample of teachers in Australia. Teachers were asked by means of an introductory letter if they wished to take part in the survey; questionnaires were only sent to those teachers (to the home address) who volunteered to participate. No identification of individual teachers is possible within the procedures used.

In respect to questions 40 and 41, such questions are part of the standard demographic information collected in opinion sampling by all survey firms. As no individuals can be identified even by the survey firm, I understand that the Minister is satisfied that the information will not be used in an improper manner. However, he has informed me he regards questions 40 and 41 as indefensible. Questions asked in this educational context should never have followed Arthur Meadows and Co’s usual procedures. A questionnaire designed in relation to any Government Commission must not only be politically neutral, but must appear to be. The Schools Commission did not include these questions in the subject matter. It asked the Company to survey. They appear to have been inserted by the Company in accordance with its normal procedures in its demographic surveys.

Immigration

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-On 20 November 1974, Senator Mulvihill asked me the following question, without notice:

Can the Minister obtain an up to date assessment of the number of Australians who sought mediation by Australia House when the manpower authorities in the United Kingdom declined to extend their stay in Britain in view of Britain’s Common Market obligations and the changed status of Australians in comparison with Common Market nationals?

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

The Australian High Commission in London has no record of any approaches for mediation in circumstances described in the Question under notice. Up to the end of October the High Commission had received 56 written applications and 60 telephone enquiries regarding extensions of stay for visiting Australians. Most of the enquirers sought only information on procedures, but 7 cases were taken up with the Home Office. The United Kingdom authorities do not keep figures of unsuccussful applications for extension of stay, but state that there are no indications of any increase in numbers of European Economic Community nationals entering the United Kingdom for employment since the entry of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community.

State Grants

Senator Willesee:
ALP

-On 28 November 1974 Senator Milliner asked me the following question, without notice:

Can the Minister representing the Special Minister of State indicate when local authorities throughout Australia will receive the payments of $56,345,000 that were granted as a result of the recommendations of the first Report of the Grants Commission.

Will the Special Minister of State remind the recipients of this substantial allocation of funds that it was as a result of the initiatives taken by the Australian Government that the Grants Commission was requested to recommend the finance that should be allocated.

The Special Minister of State has supplied the following information in answer to Senator Milliner’s question regarding grants to local government authorities:

Grants were forwarded to State Treasurers on Wednesday, 27 November 1974.

The Prime Minister has asked the State Treasurers for their co-operation in ensuring that these funds be paid promptly to respective local government authorities.

The Special Minister of State has requested Ministers for Local Government in the States and Regional Secretaries to advise Local Councils and the State and Federal Members of the date on which the grants will actually be paid to the Local Councils. In Queensland, the grants were paid by the State Treasury to the Councils on the afternoon of Wednesday, 27 November, the same day on which the Australian Treasury made funds available to the State Treasuries.

I am sure that all Local Government Councils recognise and appreciate the Australian Government’s initiative in the payment of these initial grants as a most significant development for Local Government throughout Australia.

Mr Georgi Ermolenko (Question No. 241)

Senator Carrick:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Russian violinist, Georgi Ermolenko, visit the Department of Labor and Immigration in Perth on Monday, 12 August 1974.
  2. What did he state as the purpose of his visit.
  3. Did he inquire about conditions for remaining in Australia.
  4. What forms, if any, were completed as the result of his visit.
  5. Was the visit to the Department interrupted in order for Ermolenko to return briefly to his hotel.
  6. Did he indicate his intention to return to the Department; if so, for what purpose.
  7. Did he return; if not, were there any further contacts between the Department and Ermolenko; if so, what was their nature.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Mr Ermolenko was invited to visit the Department to discuss his request of the previous day to remain in Australia.
  3. No.
  4. None.
  5. ) The visit was interrupted to allow Mr Ermolenko to go with his friends to the Hotel Parmelia.
  6. Mr Ermolenko indicated during the interview that he had to keep an appointment at the Hotel Parmelia at 1 1 a.m. and was told that he could return to complete the immigration interview after that
  7. No. There was no further contact other than when the temporary entry permits of members of the party, including Mr Ermolenko, were extended.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 11 December 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19741211_senate_29_s62/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant