Senate
9 November 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1701

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator WITHERS:
Minister for Administrative Services · Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services and Leader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– by leave- I inform the Senate that a new Department of Productivity was created yesterday and that the Honourable Ian Macphee has been appointed Minister for Productivity. He is also the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Women’s Affairs and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Senator the Honourable Peter Durack, will represent the Minister for Productivity in the Senate.

page 1701

PETITIONS

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 258 citizens of Australia:

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

That the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976, does not satisfy the Aboriginal needs for land in the Northern Territory.

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

Extend the freeze on European claims to the unalienated Crown Lands of the Northern Territory until 12 months after the passage of the Bill; and to provide for speedy lodging and hearing of Aboriginal claims. The hearing of Aboriginal claims have been postponed as a result of Government decisions, Aboriginals should not be penalised;

Amend the Bill to ensure:

The removal of all powers to pass Land Rights Legislation from Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, particularly its control over sacred sites, entry permits, control over the seas adjoining Aboriginal land, the fishing rights of non-Aborigines, the right of Aborigines to enter pastoral stations and control of wildlife on Aboriginal land.

The control by Aborigines of all roads passing through Aboriginal lands.

The restoration of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner’s powers to hear claims based on need as well as traditional claims lodged by Aborigines.

The restoration of all powers vested in Lands Councils and the Land Commissioner in the 1975 Land Rights Bill . . .

) A provision that any Government decision to over-ride Aboriginal objections to mining on the basis of national interest be itself reviewed by both houses of parliament.

A provision that land-owning groups of Aborigines may apply to form separate trusts if they wish.

The removal of artificial barriers to traditional owners imposed by theTerritory Borders on all tribes so affected.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

States Grants For Schools

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 12 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:

Pass, immediately, the States Grants (Schools) Legislation for the year 1977 as recommended by the Australian Schools Commission in their Report for the Rolling Triennium 1977-79.

In no way alter the present role and administrative functions of the Australian Schools Commission.

Encourage the Australian Schools Commission to develop and implement without restrictions, a philosophy of Educational Funding independent of Government pressures.

Guarantee continuing parent and teacher representation on the Australian Schools Commission through the two recognised national bodies, namely the Australian Council of State School Organisations and the Australian Teachers Federation who represent the vast majority of children in Australia attending Government Schools.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I present the follow ing petition from 180 citizens of Australia:

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

That the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976, does not satisfy the Aboriginal needs for land in the Northern Territory.

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

Extend the freeze on European claims to the unalienated Crown Lands of the Northern Territory until 12 months after the passage of the Bill; and to provide for speedy lodging and hearing of Aboriginal claims. The hearing of Aboriginal claims have been postponed as a result of Government decisions. Aboriginals should not be penalised.

Amend the Bill to ensure:

The removal of all powers to pass Land Rights Legislation from Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, particularly its control over sacred sites, entry permits, control over the seas adjoining Aboriginal land, the fishing rights of non-Aborigines, the right of Aborigines to enter pastoralstations and control of wildlife on Aboriginal land.

b) The control by Aborigines of all roads passing through Aboriginal lands.

The restoration of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner’s powers to hear claims based on needs as well as traditional claims lodged by Aborigines.

The restoration of all powers vested in Land Councils and the Land Commissioner in the 1975 Land Rights Bill.

A provision that any Government decision to over-ride Aboriginal objections to mining on the basis of national interest be itself reviewed by both Houses of Parliament.

A provision that land-owning groups of Aborigines may apply to form separate trusts if they wish.

The removal of artificial barriers to traditional owners imposed by the Territory Borders on all tribes so affected.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator RYAN:

– I present the following petition from 1 7 1 citizens of Australia:

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

That the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976, does not satisfy the Aboriginal needs for land in theNorthern Territory.

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

Extend the freeze on European claims to the unalienated Crown Lands of the Northern Territory until 12 months after the passage of the Bill; and to provide for speedy lodging and hearing of Aboriginal claims. The hearing of Aboriginal claims have been postponed as a result of Government decisions, Aboriginals should not be penalised.

Amend the Bill to ensure:

The removal of all powers to pass Land Rights Legislation from the Northern TerritoryLegislative Assembly, particularly its control over sacred sites, entry permits, control over the seas adjoining Aboriginal land, the fishing rights of non-Aborigines, the right of Aborigines to enter pastoral stations and control of wildlife on Aboriginal land.

The control by Aborigines of all roads passing through Aboriginal lands.

The restoration of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner’s powers to hear claims based on need as well as traditional claims lodged by Aborigines.

The restoration of all powers vested in Lands Councils and the Land Commissioner in the 1 975 Land Rights Bill.

A provision that any Government decision to over-ride Aboriginal objections to mining on the basis of national interest be itself reviewed by both Houses of Parliament. (0 A provision that land-owning groups of Aborigines may apply to form separate trusts if they wish.

The removal of artificial barriers to traditional owners imposed by the Territory borders on all tribes so affected.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present 2 petitions from 213 and 234 citizens of Australia respectively, as follows:

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

That the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976, does not satisfy the Aboriginal needs for land in the Nortern Territory.

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

Extend the freeze on European claims to the unalienated Crown Lands of theNorthern Territory until 12 months after the passage of the Bill; and to provide for speedy lodging andhearing of Aboriginal Claims. The hearing of Aboriginal claims have been postponed as a result of Government decisions. Aborigines should not be penalised.

Amend the Bill to ensure:

The removal of all powers to pass Land Rights Legislation from Nortern Territory Legislative Assembly, particularly its control over sacred sites, entry permits, control overseas adjoining Aboriginal land, the fishing rights of non-Aborigines, the right of Aborigines to enter pastoral stations and control of wildlife on Aboriginal land.

b ) The control by Aborigines of all roads passing through Aboriginal lands.

The restoration of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner’s powers to hear claims based on needs as well as traditional claims lodged by Aborigines.

The restoration of all powers vested in Land Councils and the Land Commissioner in the 1975 Land Rights Bill.

A provision that any Government decision to over-ride Aboriginal objections to mining on the basis of national interest be itself reviewed by both houses of parliament.

A provision that Land-owning groups of Aborigines may apply to form separate trusts if they wish.

The removal of artificial barriers to traditional owners imposed by the Territory Borders on all tribes so affected.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Pensions

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

That those who have retired and those who are about to retire, are being severely and adversely affected by inflation and Australian economic circumstances.

The continuance of the mean’s test on pensions causes undue hardship to them.

We call on the Government to immediately abolish the mean’s test on all Aged Pensions.

To ensure a pension for all on retirement, and a guarantee that all Australian citizens will retire with dignity.

Acknowledge that a pension is a ‘right and not a charity’.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Guilfoyle, Senator Primmer, Senator Drake-Brockman and Senator Colston.

Petitions received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

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

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

Extend the freeze on European claims to the unalienated Crown Lands of theNorthern Territory until 12 months after the passage of the Bill; and to provide for speedy lodging and hearing of Aboriginal Claims. The hearing of Aboriginal claims have been postponed as a result of Government decisions. Aborigines should not be penalised. 2, Amend the Bill to ensure:

The removal of all powers to pass Land Rights Legislation from Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, particularly its control over sacred sites, entry permits, control over the seas adjoining Aboriginal land, the fishing rights of non-Aborigines, the right of Aborigines to enter pastoral stations and control of wildlife on Aboriginal land.

The control by Aborigines of all roads passing through Aboriginal lands.

The restoration of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner’s powers to hear claims based on needs as well as traditional claims lodged by Aborigines.

The restoration of all powers vested in Land Councils and the Land Commissioner in the 1 975 Land Rights Bill.

A provision that any Government decision to over-ride Aboriginal objections to mining on the basis of national interest be itself reviewed by both Houses of Parliament. (f)A provision that land-owning groups of Aborigines may apply to form separate trusts if they wish.

The removal of artificial barriers to traditional owners imposed by the Territory Borders on all tribes so affected.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (4 Petitions), Senator Missen and Senator Davidson.

Petitions received.

Metric System

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

Objection to the metric system and request the Government to restore the imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Wood.

Petition received.

Family Law Act

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:

  1. a ) That there be no sex discrimination in Family Law.
  2. That the rights of the child be paramount and that it should grow up in a happy and stable home and team how to relate in a happy marriage even though its parents cannot.
  3. That Social Services be provided according to need without sex discrimination and without Court Orders.
  4. That guidelines be given by counsellors when children are involved or when property is in dispute before matters can be set before the Court, so that the persons themselves can determine their own affairs between themselves.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Colston.

Petition received.

page 1703

MOUNT LYELL MINING AND RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED

Notice of Motion

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

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

That the Senate appoint a select committee to inquire into and report upon the following: The circumstances surrounding the operations of the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Company Limited and its associated companies and in particular the nature of assistance from the Commonwealth Government which is both practical and warranted and will alleviate the social and economic dislocation of the Queenstown area of Tasmania.

I shall also move:

That the membership and powers of the committee be set out in a subsequent motion.

page 1703

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1703

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate, as the Minister representing the Prime Minister, aware of the increasing concern amongst a widening sector of the Australian community, especially the business community, at the Government’s hard line approach to the economy? For how long is the Government prepared to hold on to its present course and to stand by and do nothing to arrest a drift towards greater unemployment, greater business uncertainty and a continuing decline in the nation’s productivity?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The honourable senator mentioned a number of issues but he really did not get to the real issue, that is, that until inflation is brought under control none of the things which anybody in this community wants can be achieved. It is not a matter of holding to a hard line at all; it is a matter of holding to a sensible line. It is a matter of holding to a line which will work. Until inflation comes down the level of unemployment will not come down. I know there are a lot of theorists about who talk about all sorts of odd things which the Government could do. The fact is that inflation is coming down. The fact is that unemployment is starting to come down. The other fact is that business activity is starting to pick up. It is all very well for people to pick out little bits of information here, little bits there and little bits somewhere else. I was interested to hear this morning that according to the latest figures issued by the Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development, for the first time in many years Australia’s inflation rate is now at the average of the OECD countries whereas I think some 12 months ago our inflation rate was about twice the rate of the OECD group. It is remarkable that the countries which are doing best are those which have the lowest inflation rate and the countries which are doing worst are those which have the highest inflation rate. We are determined that this country will be the best in the world and therefore we are going to get the inflation rate down.

Senator WRIEDT:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Wriedt on a supplementary question.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister: Will he agree that the consumer price index for the last quarter of this year will increase particularly as a result of the Medibank levy? If so, does he anticipate an increase in the rate of inflation as a result of that increase? What does that do to his theory about declining inflation and decreasing unemployment?

Senator WITHERS:

– The honourable senator makes the normal error of trying to pick one month or one quarter and applying that to the total economic situation.

Senator McLaren:

– That is what you used to do, and multiply it by twelve.

Senator WITHERS:

-There speaks one of the great economists who cannot even catch up with metrics. He is still talking in dozens. The Government is well aware that the Medibank levy will flow on to the consumer price index for the December quarter. It is quite well aware of that. The decision was taken quite consciously months ago. Anyone would think that all of a sudden the Leader of the Opposition has discovered this startling fact. That fact was known when it was decided to apply the Medibank levy. What has to be looked at is the performance of the economy over a period-a period of not less than 12 months. I repeat that, although the Government may not yet have got inflation down to the level that it wants, it is certainly falling and I thought every Australian would be applauding that.

page 1704

QUESTION

TAIWAN

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I draw the attention of the Minister to paragraph 8 on page 4 of the Defence statement where Taiwan is referred to as the Territory of Taiwan. I ask: Will the Minister define the term the ‘Territory of

Taiwan’? Is it one of international usage? If not, why is the term being used by Australia?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I am afraid I have not read the Defence White Paper with the particularity with which my honourable friend and colleague has read it. I will certainly now read the passage to which the honourable senator has drawn my attention and I will seek the information from my colleague in the other place.

page 1704

QUESTION

INVINCIBLE LIFE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I preface it by reminding the Minister that certain safeguards have been written into the law to protect the investments made by way of payments of premiums on insurance policies on the lives of persons who insure with all insurance companies registered in Australia. Is the Minister aware that this policy is apparently not adhered to by a company known as Invincible Life and General Insurance Company Ltd which is incorporated in New South Wales? Are agents of this company allowed to solicit new business by advising prospective clients that premiums are repaid in toto on a whole of life policy after a qualifying period of 2 years? If the client decides to opt out after the qualifying period and the insurance company refuses to reimburse the client fully, what action can the Government take?

Senator DURACK:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I will refer the question asked by Senator Keeffe to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs whom I represent and endeavour to obtain an early reply from him.

page 1704

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT IN TASMANIA

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations a question relating to the unemployment situation in Tasmania. Is the Minister able to compare unemployment in Tasmania under the Neilson Labor Government with unemployment in those States which have Liberal governments? Does Premier Neilson now preside over Australia ‘s worst unemployment? Is his trip to Canberra nothing but a panic measure to try to find an issue for an election that he will lose, according to my calculations, by 5 seats?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I was somewhat interested in and a little intrigued by the visit of the Premier of Tasmania to Canberra today to see the Prime Minister. It seemed that it was being somewhat stage managed, because it is fairly obvious that already he has taken a decision to hold an early election. In specific answer to the questions asked by Senator Townley, I have the percentage unemployment figures for the end of October 1976. They reveal the following facts: In New South Wales the unemployment rate was 5.20 per cent of the labour force; in Victoria, 3.70 per cent; in Queensland, 4.3 1 per cent; in South Australia, 3.37 per cent; in Western Australia, 3.63 per cent; and in Tasmania, 5.22 per cent. Those figures would bear out the concern expressed by Senator Townley that Tasmania has the worst rate of unemployment in Australia, followed by another Labor State, New South Wales, with 5.20 per cent.

page 1705

QUESTION

LETTER BOMB INVESTIGATIONS

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. By way of preface I refer to a statement made by the Assistant Commissioner of the Australia Police, Superintendent J. Davies, in respect of the letter bombs which were sent to Mr Fraser, Mr Bjelke-Petersen and Sir John Kerr during the course of the last Federal election. Mr Davies was reported as stating on 20 November last year that there would be an ‘all-out law enforcement effort to find the culprit’. It will be recalled also that on 19 November last the Australian Postal Commission offered a $20,000 reward for evidence leading to the conviction of the person who sent the letter bombs. I ask the Minister: As nearly a year has elapsed since these events and in view of the widely held belief at the time that the letter bombs were not intended to harm those to whom they were sent, since notoriously such personages do not open their own mail, but to harm the Labor Party, has there been any outcome of the ‘all-out law enforcement effort to find the culprit’, or was the matter quietly dropped after the election?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am rather surprised that Senator James McClelland should put a rider on a question which I thought was a serious one. I do not think there would be anybody in any position of responsibility in this country who would be playing politics in this way. However, despite the comments of Senator McClelland, I will assume, perhaps not correctly, that he is genuinely seeking information of the AttorneyGeneral about these investigations and I will pass his question on to the Attorney-General.

page 1705

QUESTION

RADIOACTIVE ORE DUMP

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of Press reports indicating that an ore dump at Port Pirie in South Australia contains dangerously high levels of radioactivity? Has the Minister been in contact with the South Australian Government regarding this matter? Can the Minister inform the Senate of how this situation arose and what steps are being taken to render the area safe?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– I am aware of the Press and other reports that have appeared concerning radioactivity in the tailings from a closed ore processing plant at Port Pirie. The Senate will be aware, of course, that as the honourable senator mentioned this matter is primarily the responsibility of the South Australian State Government. Through the Minister for Health I have asked for full details of this situation and I will release any information I obtain from him as soon as possible. At the present time I have no concrete information that I can offer.

page 1705

QUESTION

TASMANIAN RAILWAY SYSTEM

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware of a report current in Tasmania that it is now proposed to repudiate part of the agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Tasmania relating to the taking over of the Tasmanian railway system by requiring primary producers and others whose boundaries adjoin railway property to share the cost of repair, maintenance and replacement of the boundary fences? Will the Minister make inquiries to determine whether reports are correct that the matter has been raised in correspondence between the Federal Minister, Mr Nixon, and the Government of Tasmania? Will he take steps to ensure that this additional expense will not be placed on primary industry in the present difficult economic climate in the rural sector?

Senator CARRICK:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I am not aware of such a matter. I am not surprised that in this present electoral climate a wide range of rumours are being spread. I think it would be wise for all not to take aboard too many rumours emanating from Tasmania over the next few weeks. Having said that, lest there should be any doubt about this matter, I will bring it to the attention of my colleague and ask him to comment on it.

page 1705

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE: RESEARCH

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Science able to say what research is being carried out by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation or other bodies in Australia aimed at ensuring the most efficient use of superphosphate by farmers and the development of substitutes for superphosphate? Will the Minister make a statement to the Parliament on this subject, which is of fundamental importance to primary producers in Australia?

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science · VICTORIA · NCP/NP

-The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is involved in research on the use of a variety of measures for primary producers. In the current economic climate a particular task for the CSIRO is to look to the most efficient use and application of superphosphate. So far as I am aware, presently research is being undertaken in Western Australia and New South Wales, at least by the CSIRO. I have been advised that in Western Australia studies by the CSIRO have indicated that a heavier application of superphosphate on some crops has made the stubble, which is the residue of the crop, more attractive to stock and that indeed during drought conditions it may be a more profitable application of superphosphate. During this past weekend I have been visiting a property named Chiswick at Armidale in New South Wales, which is one of the research stations of the CSIRO. For a period of 10 years researchers on that property have been carrying out an evaluation of various uses of superphosphate and indeed an evaluation of residues in the various areas. I shall ascertain what progress has been made in this area and I shall contemplate, in the time that is available to us between now and the end of the session, whether a statement should be made.

page 1706

RIVERLAND FRUIT PRODUCTS CO-OPERATIVE LTD

Senator McLAREN:

-The Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry will recall that during the second reading debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1976-77 last Wednesday and again during the adjournment debate last Thursday I raised the matter of converting a loan to the Riverland Fruit Products Co-operative Ltd at Berri in South Australia to a direct grant to assist the fruit growers in the Riverland of South Australia. In view of the Minister’s answer on Thursday evening last that he would see whether he could get the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, on the telephone to ask whether he could help, I now ask the Minister whether he can inform the Senate of the outcome of his discussion with Mr Sinclair.

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I rang through to the Minister’s office late on Thursday night after the adjournment debate, passing on the message that Senator McLaren had raised this matter in the Senate with some increased anxiety. I asked the Minister’s office whether it could do anything to assist the Riverland Fruit Products Cooperative and, if it could do so, to let me know.

Currently I have not had an answer. After question time I shall again raise the matter with the Minister’s office.

page 1706

QUESTION

VISIT OF TASMANIAN PREMIER

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Senator O’Byrne evidently knows quite a lot of what is going on. He said that they will be meeting at 3.30 p.m. I thought they were meeting some time this afternoon after question time concludes in the other place. Yes, it is a fact that Mr Neilson is here. As I understand it, his visit is not simply because there is to be an election in Tasmania on 4 December but also arises out of other matters. The honourable senator may have seen Press reports that during the Constitutional Convention in Hobart Mr Neilson had produced his 24-point plan- I think there were 24 points in it- and the Prime Minister said then that the Commonwealth Government would give serious consideration to the matters raised by the Premier and, having studied them, he would be prepared to discuss them with the Premier of Tasmania. I therefore assume and hope that the Premier’s visit here arises out of the discussion between the Prime Minister and the Premier in Hobart and not simply out of some desire to have an election on 4 December next.

page 1706

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY: CASINO

Senator ROBERTSON:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory. An advertisement in the Australian Financial Review of 8 November calls for an investor to develop in the Northern Territory a large international hotel complex, including a casino. The advertisement claims that local government assistance in the project is assured and says that the results of a feasibility study, together with Federal Government correspondence on the matter, will be made available. As the Lotteries and Gaming Ordinance of the Northern Territory does not make provision for casinos, will the Minister explain to the Senate the Federal Government’s involvement and table the correspondence referred to in the advertisement?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The answer to the honourable senator’s question would be no. I am not aware of the advertisement which appeared in the Australian Financial Review. The matter is one for consideration by the Minister for the Northern Territory. I will refer the question to him and if there is any information I can give to the honourable senator I will do so. I think it would be proper for a question such as this to be placed on notice.

page 1707

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE: WHITE PAPER

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I refer to the White Paper on Australian Defence tabled in the Senate last Thursday. Will the Minister please comment on 2 matters? The map on pages 28 and 29 shows Canberra as the centre of the world, whereas I have been told that Perth deserves that honour. The second matter is that distances are shown in miles. Does this mean that Senator Wood, whose feelings on metrication are well known and who is the senior senator from the home State of the Minister for Defence, has more influence over that Minister than does his ministerial colleague, the Minister for Science, Senator Webster, or does it mean that the Minister for Defence insidiously is trying to restore furlongs to the racetrack?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I really must give the White Paper on Australian Defence urgent study because not only has Senator Sim asked me a difficult question about it but also my colleague, Senator Thomas, has. I will even have to look at the map. If the publication is produced from Canberra I have no doubt that officers think that Canberra is the centre of Australia. I suppose if one did not use Canberra what would one use? Perhaps one could use the geographical centre of Australia which is Alice Springs, or close enough thereto. I will have a look at the map and I will draw the honourable senator’s comments to the attention of the Minister. I have no idea why miles have been used instead of kilometres. I will also obtain that information from the Minister.

page 1707

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, follows previous questions asked about pharmaceutical benefit items. The Minister will recall that a number of questions have been asked, including questions asked by me, about the February 1976 review which took from the free benefits list a number of important pharmaceutical items, particularly those relating to allergic and hypertensive conditions. Since that time, representations have been made to the Minister. As it is now some 9 months since that review and as representations to senators from associations and people have been continuing, will the Minister ask the Minister for Health whether some current review might now be conducted?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-I will draw to the Minister’s attention once again the representations that have been made following the statement in February with regard to pharmaceutical benefit items. If there is any further information available or if a further review is to be undertaken I will advise the Senate accordingly.

page 1707

QUESTION

DOUGLAS PARK REHABILITATION CENTRE

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Can the Minister for Social Security inform the chamber whether the Federal Government has made $ 1.25m available this financial year for the building of the first stages of the Douglas Park Rehabilitation Centre in Hobart. If so, as the State Government has set aside only $0.6m- less than half its share- would it be accurate to assume that the State is conducting a go-slow program on this project?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– It was announced previously that the Federal Government had made available funds for the building of the rehabilitation centre in Hobart. At this stage I am unaware of the amount which has been made available by the State Government but I understood that the rehabilitation centre was able to proceed. I will check the matter that has been raised by the honourable senator. I express the hope of us all that this centre is able to proceed without delay because it is an urgently required service in the city of Hobart.

page 1707

QUESTION

DOUGLAS PARK REHABILITATION CENTRE

Senator WRIEDT:

-My question to the Minister for Social Security follows the one asked by Senator Walters. When the Minister obtains an answer to Senator Walter’s question will she also ascertain whether the building and financing of the institute referred to is a departure from the normal Commonwealth-State financing arrangements for such projects?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will follow through the honourable senator’s question and find out what information is available. I am advised that an amount of $0.6m has been made available by the Commonwealth this financial year under division 940- Payments to or for the States- item 05. This is to match the grant of the Tasmanian Government towards the construction of the rehabilitation centre as a joint CommonwealthState project funded on a 50-50 basis. The amount of $0.6m was made available by the Commonwealth Government to match the amount made available by the State Government. This is an example of Commonwealth and State co-operation. As I said earlier, I hope that this project will be able to proceed without any delay. I am unaware of any difficulties that have arisen in this matter.

page 1708

QUESTION

DARWIN CYCLONE: LOSS OF COMMUNICATIONS

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. The Minister representing the Minister for Defence might have something to add. Major-General Alan Stretton, the author of Furious Days, has criticised the communications systems in Darwin at the time of cyclone Tracy when various defence and other communications establishments suffered such extensive damage that communications from Darwin were cut off for several hours. What action has been taken to ensure that now and in the future communications, whether civil or defence, will be constructed so as to be able to transmit to the rest of Australia despite any cyclone or attack?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I will answer the part of the question which was directed to me by referring to the annual report of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department for 1975. I understand that report was tabled by Senator Bishop when he was the Postmaster-General. One part of that report states:

The high capacity microwave system to Darwin which has been in operation since mid- 1974 remained operational at all times. It was designed and constructed to withstand cyclones and events proved that it stood the test. The extreme conditions led to the temporary loss of local communications when the central exchange building was damaged by wind and water. However, limited Post Office technical operating circuits which are part of the microwave system were working at all times and Darwin was never completely isolated.

The Leader of the Government may wish to add to that.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The information I have is quite slight. The fact is that aerials are always vulnerable to damage by flying objects in a storm, and the aerials in Darwin were no exception. This information deals with the defence aerials, not the Post Office aerials. That is why we are answering with respect to 2 different sectors. I am further advised that since the cyclone a new receiving transmitter has been finished at Shoal Bay and a new transmitter is being built at Humpty Doo in a more protected area. It is expected that these will not suffer from the disabilities of the previous defence equipment.

page 1708

QUESTION

NATIONAL COMPENSATION SCHEME

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Social Security whether she has seen reports to the effect that the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria has announced that its subsidiary, RACV Insurance Pty Ltd, will be withdrawing from the field of third party motor vehicle insurance on the ground that the losses that are involved in this form of insurance are such that no private insurer can bear them, and also the remark attributed to Sir Cecil Looker, the President of the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, that third party motor vehicle insurance is more properly a social service than a commercial insurance activity. In view of the difficulties that are being faced by third party motor vehicle insurers as well as workers compensation insurers throughout Australia, can the Minister tell us what the progress has been in the investigations by her Department into the establishment of an urgently needed national compensation scheme for Australia?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have not had drawn to my attention the statements with regard to RACV Insurance Pty Ltd or the comment of Sir Cecil Looker to the effect that third party motor vehicle insurance is more properly to be regarded as a social service matter. However, I am aware of difficulties that have arisen with regard to the higher rates that are required for motor vehicle insurance and for workers compensation insurance. If we were to look closely at the matters relating to the closure of the Mount Lyell works we would see that the heavy rise in workers compensation costs has been one of the matters that have made that project a difficult one in economic terms.

This year the Commonwealth has been working with State governments at officer and ministerial level to see whether we are able to find some areas in which we can develop a cooperative national compensation policy between the Commonwealth and State governments and involving private insurers and others. At present talks are proceeding at officer level, and I understand that meetings are scheduled for later this year. Not a great deal of progress has been made up to this stage, because whilst the States are prepared to engage in discussions and talks not all

States are prepared to commit themselves to participating in a national compensation policy. However, I hope that at the end of the next stage of the discussions that are held at officer level there will be a clearer indication as to whether States are prepared to work co-operatively towards a national compensation policy. There may be further information I can give to the Senate on this matter a little later.

page 1709

QUESTION

MEDIBANK: HEALTH CHECKS OF COMPANY EXECUTIVES

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to reports that certain companies require their executives to undergo compulsory health checks and that these companies then avoid payment by subsequently requiring the employee concerned to pay the bill and seek reimbursement from Medibank. Is the Minister aware of this practice? If so, are steps being taken to stop its occurrence?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not aware of the matter raised by the honourable senator. I am a little unclear whether a new problem is created in respect of persons receiving medical services which are normally covered by Medibank if medical checks are undertaken at the insistence of companies. However, I will refer the matter to the Minister for Health to see whether there is any information that he would like to provide on this matter.

Senator MISSEN:

– I ask a supplementary question as I think the Minister slightly misunderstood my question. It is that certain companies require their employees to undergo tests, not that the people are seeking medical attention. The companies are then using this device to obtain the payment. I appreciate the fact that the Minister intends to refer the matter to the Minister for Health but I think it ought to be clear that that is the information I am seeking.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I did understand that that was the matter being referred to by the honourable senator and I was making the point that, if it was a medical service that had been obtained by a member of the company concerned, I did not know whether that would be covered by Medibank or if it was a matter that normally could be covered by Medibank insurance. As I said, I will refer the matter to the Minister for Health to see whether there is information on it.

page 1709

QUESTION

AWARD BREACHES: ARBITRATION INSPECTION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. By way of preface I refer to information which I received last week as a feedback from the Senate Estimates Committee which dealt with the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, which revealed the underpayment of $25,000 compared with award rates by a certain concessionaire at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Can the Minister amplify that information, with particular reference to the apparent infrequent checks of time sheets by Commonwealth arbitration inspectors, the number of people engaged, how and when they will receive their money and, finally, the name of the wrongdoer?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-As Senator Mulvihill has informed the Senate, as a result of some questions which he himself asked witnesses before Senator Estimates Committee F, the Committee was provided with some information concerning a current investigation of a concessionaire at Kingsford-Smith Airport in regard to the possible underpayment of employees. I have had the matter investigated further and I have received quite a deal of information which I am sure will interest the Senate. I will try to keep it as brief as lean.

The primary functions of inspections under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are to secure observance of the Act and its regulations and of federal award provisions, provide technical advice and information and bring to notice defects in and abuses of awards. There is no precise information available on the actual number of respondents to federal awards, which are those which are the subject of investigation from time to time, but it is estimated roughly that the number of employers bound by federal awards would exceed 200 000. On the other hand, the Commonwealth arbitration inspectorate has fewer than 100 inspectors available for the conduct of routine inspections, and it receives about 4000 complaints each year in regard to possible breaches of an award. Consequently, whilst it seeks to cover all federal awards, it gives special attention to those awards breaches of which are generally the most common, and to industries where routine inspections or complaints suggest there may be relatively widespread nonobservance of awards. It should be borne in mind that the Conciliation and Arbitration Act does not restrict award enforcement to arbitration inspectors but allows a registered organisation or a member of a registered organisation affected by an award to take enforcement action. Of course, this is a very important responsibility and an activity of the union movement. As far as the particular matter at the Kingsford-Smith Airport is concerned, the inspectorate’s investigation into alleged underpayment by the employer is proceeding and the extent of it is in some doubt. Until that inspection is completed I will be unable to give the Senate any further information on that particular investigation.

page 1710

QUESTION

CIVIL MARRIAGE CELEBRANTS

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General: How many new civil marriage celebrants have been appointed in each State since the Fraser Government assumed office?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-A total of 23 private civil marriage celebrants have been appointed by the present Government. Their distribution throughout the States and Territories is as follows: New South Wales 7, Victoria 5, Queensland 5, Western Australia 4, South Australia nil, Tasmania 1, Australian Capital Territory nil and Northern Territory 1. The purpose of these appointments is to provide convenient facilities for civil marriage for those people who desire a satisfying alternative to a registry office ceremony. Honourable senators will note that this Government has proceeded with some proper caution in regard to the numbers appointed, and I make no comment at all on one notable appointment that was made by the previous Government. By way of contrast, while saying nothing of the appointment of the Leader of the Government in the Senate to this office, in the latter half of 1973- the first year of the scheme’s operation- the Labor Government authorised 13 civil marriage celebrants, in 1974 it authorised 85 and in 1975 it authorised 109, a total of 207 in less than 2Vi years. The Government’s policy has been to make these appointments only after the most careful consideration of the likely demands for the celebrants’ services, his or her personal qualities and the number of celebrants already providing a service in the area concerned.

page 1710

QUESTION

PROVISION OF FUNDS FOR SCHOOLS

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Is he aware of criticism made recently by the Victorian State School Parents Clubs and the Victorian Council of

School Organisations relating to inadequate education funding for new schools and the maintenance of existing schools? Is the Minister aware that the 2 parent organisations have stated that the cut in capital funding is delaying the completion of a 3-year building program based on needs by up to 7 years? Is the Minister aware that this has increased the problems of learning in second rate, dilapidated and limited facilities? In view of this situation will the Government investigate these claims and undertake to release sufficient funds for capital expenditure to reverse the downturn in the schools building program?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Primmer should know that the central responsibility to answer the question he has posed lies with the Victorian State Government because State schools, primary and secondary, are the constitutional and financial responsibility of the States. He should also know, since he refers to cuts, that the only cuts that were made were made by the former Whitlam Government and that this year, for 1977, the Commonwealth Government will be supplying additional funds to the States to supplement their recurrent and capital works. I suggest that if he has some particular points to make regarding alleged defects within the Victorian system he should draw them to the attention of the Victorian Government.

page 1710

QUESTION

RADIOACTIVE ORE DUMP

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Science and follows that asked by Senator Jessop in relation to events at Port Pirie, South Australia. Has the Minister’s Department made any studies of the situation which has arisen in Port Pirie in which there appears to be a serious state of radioactivity described as higher than appropriate standards? Has the Minister received any request from the South Australian Government for scientific and related advice on this matter? Will officers of his Department make inquiries into the situation with a view to preventing any repetition or extension of the problem?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I have received no request, so far as I am aware, from the South Australian Government in regard to this matter. Basically it is a matter which concerns a portfolio other than mine but in response to the honourable senator’s interest and his question, I will make some investigation of the matter and will give a direct reply to the honourable senator.

page 1710

QUESTION

BUDGET DEFICIT

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I remind the Minister of a question I asked on 9 September relating to the rate of Budget deficit which at that time had reached $1,45 6m. In reply he said that expenditure runs in variable patterns and revenue accumulates in a variable style. In view of this, can the Minister explain the resent circumstances of a Budget deficit of 2,859m announced for the first 3 months of 1976-77? Will the Minister confirm that this is $250m in excess of the Budget deficit for the same period in 1 975-76? Finally, can the Minister outline the measures the Government intends to take to overcome the Budget deficit, keeping in mind the comments made by the Liberal and National Country Parties when we were in government to the effect that that rate of Budget deficit was irresponsible?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Government has produced a Budget which stated a certain deficit. It is the Government’s intention to hold to that Budget deficit pattern, which will emerge as a final result in June of next year. The honourable senator will recall that last year we were criticising his Government’s then Budget deficit and saying that it was in the process of being doubled as events passed, which I think proved to be the case. The balance of the honourable senator’s query will best be satisfied when the Government’s financing transactions statement as at the end of October is issued. It will illuminate the scene for all of us. I shall obtain a copy of it for the honourable senator.

page 1711

QUESTION

HOLIDAY CARE PROGRAMS

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I ask the Minister for Social Security a question concerning the proposed arrangements for holiday care programs for school children to be assisted by the Office of Child Care. What arrangements have been made or are being made to provide such programs in the Australian Capital Territory?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The Office of Child Care is to give support to vacation care projects in the Australian Capital Territory. Advertisements were placed in the Canberra Times in October and later, calling for applications from voluntary organisations. I understand that some consultations took place between the Office of Child Care and some of the applicants last week. The Office of Child Care will be considering the applications and shortly will make recommendations for grants for the next school vacation period. It is hoped that these projects will be of assistance to children in the Australian Capital Territory, in particular those children of working parents, single parents and others who require this special service. I hope to make an announcement in the near future of a more general nature regarding holiday projects. I will see that the honourable senator is advised accordingly.

page 1711

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, follows the question asked by Senator Georges of Senator Cotton. Is the Minister aware that because the Budget deficit now is some $250m in excess of what it was at this time last year there is increasing concern within the Australian Public Service that the Government intends to introduce further public sector expenditure cuts and to impose even more limited staff ceiling levels on the Australian Public Service? Is the Minister aware that because of existing staff ceiling limits morale in the Public Service is now at a very low ebb? Will the Government make a clear statement as to what its future intention is regarding job opportunities for school leavers within the Australian Public Service?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I must say that I am unaware of any increasing concern in the Public Service about public sector expenditure cuts or staff ceilings or of any suggestion of low morale. If ever there was low morale in the Public Service it was evident some 12 to 15 months ago. That is when the low morale was about. As far as one is able to judge, the Public Service has never worked better and with greater heart than it has done during the last 12 months. Any announcements as to what the Government does about the economy will be made by the appropriate Minister.

page 1711

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

-Can the Minister for Education define the terms ‘tertiary’ and ‘postsecondary’ as they apply to entitlements and allowances under various aspects of the education legislation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I will attempt to define the general usage of the terms. In general, the term tertiary education has applied to universities and to colleges of advanced education. It has applied specifically to those 2 kinds of institutions. Post-secondary is a term which has applied to those forms of education which follow upon secondary education. Upon completion of year 12 at a matriculation level a person may go on to tertiary education but, alternatively, after leaving school he may go to a technical college or a community college. So post-secondary would be inclusive of tertiary education but would include also institutions such as technical colleges, community colleges or colleges of that nature which do not necessarily require a matriculation pass for entry to the college. Having said that, I have no doubt that many experts will contradict me.

page 1712

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRS: PERTH OFFICE

Senator MCINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. Is the Minister aware that at the office of his Department in William Street, Perth, no provision is made for members of the public to discuss their affairs in private when seeking information and advice on pensions and other related matters? Can the Minister look into the possibility of providing a private area where people can feel free to discuss their business in private with members of his Department?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have of course inspected the Department’s office in Perth but the point raised by Senator Mcintosh was not drawn to my attention, nor did I note it. I will look into the matter which he has raised and ascertain whether anything can be done along the lines he has suggested.

page 1712

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: STAFF REPRESENTATION

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Will the Minister give an assurance that in all decisions aimed at restructuring the Australian Broadcasting Commission the principle of staff representation on the board of commissioners will be maintained?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Later today I will be tabling the statement of my colleague the Minister for Post and Telecommunications as to the Government’s intentions. The policies are spelt out in that statement.

page 1712

QUESTION

CYCLONE WARNINGS

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question which is directed to the Minister for Science by stating that I am well aware of the need to have adequate warning of impending cyclones. Indeed, comments over recent days have stressed this need. I ask: Is the Minister aware of strong criticisms made recently by the executive officer of the Queensland Motels Association, Mr Jim Pringle, that sensational publicity surrounding cyclones and strong winds, and cyclone siren warnings broadcast over the media, are drastically affecting the tourist industry in Queensland, in particular through motel and other accommodation bookings? If so, has the Minister studied Mr Pringle ‘s call for a reassessment of the cyclone warning system? If not, will the Minister study Mr Pringle ‘s call for a reassessment of the cyclone warning system with a view to scaling down warnings for certain degrees of cyclones or for cyclones situated well off the coast? What action does the Minister intend to take as a result of Mr Pringle ‘s request?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I am not aware of recent comments by Mr James Pringle of the need or otherwise to review the cyclone warning system in Queensland. I can say that the matter of cyclone warnings has in recent times been something to which the Bureau of Meteorology has given quite a deal of consideration. The honourable senator will recognise that there is a difficulty in deciding what should be adequate warning in this most difficult area in which it is not possible basically to predict the course which a cyclone may take. Of course one must always err on the side of alerting the public to the possibility of a cyclone and the hazards that follow it. The Bureau has been active in relation to the suggestion of scaling down warnings. I hold some reserve in my mind as to whether there is wisdom in that suggestion. I undertake to do as the honourable senator requests. I shall take up the matter immediately with the Bureau of Meteorology, shall draw its attention to the comments by Mr Pringle and shall attempt to give an answer to the honourable senator in due course.

page 1712

QUESTION

EDUCATION OF HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

Senator BAUME:

-Is the Minister for Education aware of the generally held view that children with mental deficiency should be treated in special school situations with less ambitious goals, later starting ages and less sensory input than normal children? Is he able to inform the Senate whether he has become aware of any experiments which seriously challenge these beliefs? Can he detail some of the quite incredible educational goals being achieved by certain children with Down’s syndrome at a special school in Sydney? Can he advise the Senate whether the unit at Macquarie University which is carrying out this work enjoys funding support from the Department of Education or any other Federal department?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Baume raises what is, I think, a matter of growing importance and of very considerable significance in special education. The first part of his question focuses on the fact that until quite recently it was thought that those with limitations in mental capacity, as those with limitations physically, necessarily must be put in special schools and must be treated as special people away from their peers. I am happy to say that there is a growing belief that those with handicaps should be kept as far as possible amongst the children of their age groups in ordinary schools. It may well be that from time to time they should be taken and given special instruction and brought back. The general tendency today is to recognise as far as possible that all have handicaps but that some have more marked handicaps than others and should be treated in the way I have mentioned.

I think Senator Baume is referring to an experiment that I have seen at the special education unit at Macquarie University and which I think all honourable senators would find quite remarkable. There, as one example, the staff have taken young children of, I think, 4 or 5 years of age who have Down’s syndrome- that is, they are mongoloid, having a genetic aberration. Where normally one would believe that those children could not be trained in the routine basic skills of literacy and numeracy, it has become quite clear that with the application of special training they are making remarkable progress. I commend that work. I commend the institute itself. Yes, it has been funded federally. But more importantly, I commend what I suspect the honourable senator is referring to, that is, an attitude of mind which is no longer defeatist but takes the training of persons with even severe handicaps as a challenge, advocates public acceptance, and as far as possible aims to restore all such people to the community of their peers.

page 1713

QUESTION

RADIOACTIVE ORE DUMP

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask of either the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade or the Minister representing the Minister for Defence a question which refers to the situation at Port Pirie. Was not the plant at Evandale, Port Pirie, built for the purpose of treating uranium from Radium Hill to supply the requirements of the United States and the United Kingdom Combined Development Agency? Although it was an agreement between other countries, would not the Commonwealth be involved to some extent? Did not the Commonwealth of Australia, together with Canada, become a party to the Combined Development Agency for the purpose of providing atomic power? Does Australia have an involvement in this plant? The complications could be serious. Illness has been reported and there have been other occurrences.

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I know something of the history of this matter. The activities being undertaken at Radium Hill were not so terribly far way from Broken Hill where I was born and I know a little about them. I knew something of the treatment plant at Port Pirie, but not a great deal. That was quite a long time ago. The thing that surprises me is that nobody until now has checked out the old dumping sites and the treatment areas.

Senator O’Byrne:

– No one knows anything about radioactivity; that is the trouble.

Senator COTTON:

– Perhaps we might now get to the point of accepting that there may be less knowledge in the Senate than there is in other parts of the world. What we ought to do, therefore, is to have the question put on notice. It is a serious question and it is entitled to a serious answer. I shall try to obtain that for the honourable senator.

page 1713

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications: Is it not a fact that section 32 of the Broadcasting and Television Act was inserted in 1960 by a Liberal Government to provide for the term of commissioners of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and with the specific purpose of ensuring the integrity of the ABC and the continuity of members of the Commission? Can it be construed from the statement made last Thursday by the Minister, Mr Eric Robinson, that the position of the staff-elected member of the Commission, Mr Marius Webb, is in jeopardy? If that is so, does the Minister regard this as being consistent with the oft stated policy of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, with Sir John Egerton being used as the prime example, that employee representatives should be on the boards of government instrumentalities.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Although I am very familiar with the Broadcasting and Television Act, section 32 does not come readily to mind. So I confess that, except for what the honourable senator has said, I do not know what its terms are. There is no question whatsoever that anything that this Government may do by way of reform with regard to the whole of the framework of the broadcasting and television industry will in any way threaten the integrity of those institutions. On the contrary, the Commonwealth Government is determined that there shall be set up and maintained statutory bodies which not only have freedom to carry out their work but also have an objectivity of purpose to bring about what the Broadcasting and Television Act says is their major task- that is, the provision of adequate and comprehensive programming. That is, I think, constantly forgotten by the Labor Party which looks to the end in itself of a body having freedom but which does not look to the purpose of the freedom. The freedom that any body is given is for the provision of comprehensive and adequate programming. As to the methodology of implementing the reforms, that has been stated by the Minister concerned. I will be tabling a copy of his statement. As to the particular persons who will serve on the Commission, that will be a matter for future Government policy in the light of the statements concerned. I am aware that there are certain rumours in public. There is no basis at this moment for the rumours because no policy matters have been stated in this regard. So I suggest that the honourable senator wait until the statement is published.

Senator BUTTON:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question. I asked the Minister whether the position of Mr Marius Webb was in jeopardy. The Minister said that there had been rumours. Will he confirm or deny those rumours?

Senator CARRICK:

– I am not in business to confirm or deny rumours at all. I notice that Sir John Egerton was cited as an authority. I hope that Senator Button and the Labor Party cites as an authority his statements as they were recorded in today’s Press, because they are very significant in terms of political activity in trade unionism.

page 1714

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I seek leave to make a short statement on the ground that I have been misrepresented.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Major-General Alan Stretton has said, on both the Australian Broadcasting Commission radio program AM and last night’s ABC television news, that I, along with some of my Cabinet colleagues in the Whitlam Labor Government, went to Darwin at the time of cyclone Tracy merely to obtain publicity for ourselves, and also, so far as I was concerned, that when I was in Darwin I attempted to control the news stories coming out of Darwin. Both of these statements by General Stretton are wilfully and maliciously false statements. I went to Darwin at the request of the then Acting Prime Minister because the ABC transmitter had been put completely out of action by the cyclone. Under sections 6 1 and 62 of the Broadcasting and Television Act only I, the Minister for Media, was empowered to approve of expenditure in excess of an amount of $100,000being incurred by the ABC. It was felt thatimmediate expenditure of more than that amount might be involved and the Acting Prime Minister requested me, the Secretary of my Department, Mr Oswin, and the General Manager of the ABC, Mr Duckmanton, to proceed immediately to Darwin. I might add that only the officers of the ABC would know of the tremendous efforts put in by Mr Oswin and Mr Duckmanton to help restore communications to the Darwin area.

The fact is that, along with others of my ministerial colleagues at the time who may have had to approve immediate expenditure by their departments, I went to Darwin on the first plane on Boxing Day 1974 because it was felt that immediate expenditure might be involved and that I, not General Stretton or anyone else, was the only person who could give immediate approval for that expenditure to be incurred. It was also for that reason that Mr Duckmanton and Mr Oswin accompanied me- to give their expert advice. As to the newspapers that are now criticising me and my Cabinet colleagues- as also apparently is General Stretton- for going to Darwin, had I not gone and had the ABC not got back to air as as soon as it did, I would have been assailed by the same critics for spending the festive season at home. Again, so far as the media were concerned I was placed in a no-win situation.

I also understand that General Stretton said last night on the ABC news that whilst I was in Darwin I had wanted to control the news outlets and that that would have been disastrous. That is another maliciously false statement on the General ‘s part. The facts are these: Darwin had been ravaged and completely shattered by cyclone Tracy. People were missing. Rescue and recovery operations were proceeding. The police were searching all destroyed premises, particularly to see whether missing people could be located. The evacuation of Darwin was beginning to take place. Internal transport communications were acute, to say the least. Roads were blocked. Water mains were burst. Movement from one part of Darwin to another was hazardous and protracted. The ABC transmitter, when we got it back on air, was operating only intermittently because of the overheating of the transmitter. When operating, it was doing so on only a very limited signal.

Journalists in the Darwin area naturally were covering all facets of the cyclone ‘s destruction. It was impossible for all of them to be in the one place at the one time waiting for a Press conference to be held. The first Press conference that I saw Major-General Stretton hold was convened in a laneway behind police headquarters. It was held there because it was impossible to get everyone inside the building. A number of journalists complained to me personally that they could not be at the airport or with police officers on search missions and, at the same time, hang around police headquarters awaiting a Press announcement by the General. It was the journalists themselves who suggested to me that perhaps Press releases could be issued on an embargo basis for everyone to obtain and then, if necessary, General Stretton could issue further comments either on the ABC which he was using for broadcasting purposes to the community in any event, or privately. At the request of the journalists I put it to the General that the sole officer of my Department who was in Darwin could assist in coordinating arrangements with the pressmen. General Stretton would not co-operate. He insisted on having his own Press conference. Indeed he is reponed in the Bulletin to have said that he was spoken to by my departmental officer. The officer who was in Darwin at the time spoke to me on Thursday last. He said: ‘I made no approach to General Stretton as he asserts in the Bulletin. I did not even speak to him. It was a Press officer from the Department of the Northern Territory who gave me what was virtually an army communications form with a scribbled instruction on it.’

I have already complained to the Editor of the Sydney Daily Mirror, Mr Galvin, about the inaccuracy of Mr Oram’s statement in last Thursday night’s edition. I have explained that Mr Oram was one of the first people to approach me when I arrived in Darwin to obtain assistance for printing machinery to be obtained from the south for The Northern Territory News which, of course, was one of the Murdoch group of papers. At this stage I restrict my comments to these few matters. I intend commenting on these and other matters in detail in a later debate. However, it distresses me to think that a man of General Stretton ‘s reputation is lending himself to this let’s kick the politicians’ attitude in order to get cheap publicity for himself and his book. I suggest that this is a sentiment that is all too ripe in the Australian community, particularly amongst some small time petty journalists. I have also complained to the General Manager of the ABC about the attitude being adopted by some of the Commission’s journalists in obtaining a story from one source without affording the other side of the case to be put. Those people do the ABC and their profession a great disservice.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GEORGES:

– I have not been as harshly treated by Major-General Stretton as Senator Douglas McClelland and some of my other colleagues have. However, I think it is necessary to get one or two points straight. When the news of the disaster came through I was contacted by Senator Wheeldon ‘s office. He was the Minister responsible for natural disasters.

Senator Withers:

– He caused it, did he?

Senator GEORGES:

-Perhaps I should change that but I will not on this occasion. The honourable senator can put it down as one he will hold against me at a later stage. It was suggested to me that since a commercial flight was leaving Brisbane and as this would be the first flight into Darwin I should go to Darwin on behalf of the Minister to see what assistance I could give. Mr Katter, the honourable member for Kennedy, and I were two of the first people into Darwin on that commercial flight. Mr Katter went his own way to assist the people of Darwin. I endeavoured to do my best to assist in the very tragic situation. I participated in two or three meetings of the very excellent committee which was set up by the citizens of Darwin and which assisted Major-General Stretton.

Major-General Stretton makes a couple of remarks in his book which seem to indicate that I grafted myself to him, that I took a very paternal interest in his welfare, and that at one stage he ordered me out of Darwin. (That challenge I took up and suggested he should try.) He realised that he did not have either the authority or the power. Nor was it just in the circumstances to do what he threatened. My paternalism towards General-Stretton was prompted by the fact that in the few days that he had been in Darwin he had had very little rest. He had reached a stage of exhaustion. I made a suggestion to him, as did some of his military advisers, who played an excellent role in the Darwin tragedy, in spite of what General Stretton says, that he should get some sleep, that he had reached the stage of complete exhaustion and was in danger of an emotional breakdown. Subsequent events proved that to be correct.

Major-General Stretton also mentions that I came into conflict with him and had some very strong words to say. This came about in this way: My role and that of many other politicians who were there- I remember in particular Mrs Dawn Lawrie, one or two other members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, and the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) were there- was an important role. It was a liaison role to see that the people of Darwin were assisted. We were able to carry this out effectively, because members of Parliament have an authority and facilities which they were able to use to assist the evacuation that was taking place. In the meetings that took place with the Acting Prime Minister at the time, Jim Cairns, and with Mr Snedden, it was agreed that the pressure on Darwin should be relieved by evacuation of the women and children, the infirm and the ill. To Major-General Stretton ‘s credit, he entered into that exercise with great enthusiasm. In fact, he was able to set in operation one of the massive evacuations of modern time. But the guidelines were set down that only women, children and the infirm were to be evacuated and that Darwin was not to be stripped of its work force. The Major was quite wrong. On the third day all the women and children who wished to leave -

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You have demoted him. You called him Major.

Senator GEORGES:

-Did I? I apologise. He is Major-General.

Senator O’Byrne:

– What made you do that?

Senator GEORGES:

– I think the matter is a little more serious than I am allowing it to become, so I should concentrate on what I am saying. The Major-General insisted that the evacuation should continue and that the work force of Darwin, able-bodied men, should also be evacuated. It was at that point that we had a disagreement. All my time had been spent at the airport and the instructions were that only women and children should be evacuated. We were assisting in that evacuation. It was when the men began to arrive seeking to evacuate that I decided to discuss the matter with MajorGeneral Stretton It was then that we had the disagreement.

Major-General stretton carried out a very difficult exercise in a very extraordinary way, and no credit should be taken away from him in the performance of that exercise. But I believe his recollection is faulty and he is doing an injustice to many people, including Senator Douglas McClelland. He is doing a great disservice to those people who gave their best to the effort without seeking any credit for themselves. The greatest of credit should be given to the Army personnel in Darwin and to the pilots who flew the Hercules aircraft. They carried out a very difficult exercise, at great danger to themselves, flying around the clock. It is not to MajorGeneral Stretton ‘s credit to diminish their role in any way.

I now come to the conclusion of my personal explanation. I take great offence at an article which appeared in the Daily Mirror written by Jim Oram. Jim Oram implied that I sought to take advantage of the tragic situation in Darwin to obtain some personal credit. I do not even remember Jim Oram. He manufactured a conversation and reported it in inverted commas. I consider that to be highly offensive. The Daily Mirror is one of the News Limited newspapers. I understand that the Australian is the newspaper which carries the banner for News Limited. There was at that time in Darwin a Mr David Evans who was the Editor for Queensland for the Australian. Some weeks after the Darwin disaster he wrote to me. I will read the letter into the record because it gives the lie to Jim Oram. David Evans wrote:

I would like to take this opportunity of thanking you for your help while I was in Darwin after cyclone Tracy.

Without it it would have been extremely difficult for us to re-start the Northern Territory News so quickly, or to maintain the coverage we were able to supply to newspapers in the News Limited group.

I would like to add that I was extremely impressed by the way the National Disaster Organisation, and in particular General Stretton, coped so magnificently with the problems of Darwin. I feel no government, anywhere, could have done more under the circumstances.

Thank you again for your help.

It was signed ‘David Evans, Editor, AustralianQueensland’. I have spoken to the Editor of the Daily Mirror and I have reminded him of this letter from David Evans. Through this personal explanation I also seek to remind Jim Oram of this letter which was sent by an editor of the company for which he writes. Many politicians, both from the Government and from the Opposition, rendered tremendous service in Darwin. It is quite extraordinary that some journalist should take the opportunity, on the initiative provided by Major-General Stretton, to denigrate politicians. Politicians have a particular role to play in such disasters and I think that they should continue to play that role. They should not in any way be inhibited by scurrilous comments such as those made by Jim Oram in the Daily Mirror of last Thursday.

page 1717

UNEMPLOYMENT IN TASMANIA

Matter of Urgency

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter from Senator Harradine. 9 November 1976

Dear Mr President,

I wish to advise that under Standing Order 64 I intend to move today (Tuesday 9 November): That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency-

The urgent and immediate need for Governments to act to preserve the human and economic investment- built up over generations- in Queenstown and adjacent areas of Tasmania’s West Coast, all of which is now threatened by the severe curtailment of the Mt Lyell copper mine operations, the retrenchment of over 400 workers and the consequent dislocation of their families.’

Is the motion supported?

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

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

-I move:

I would like the Senate to know that Queenstown faces a crisis. The cut of 40 per cent in the work force at the Mount Lyell mine is of great concern to Queenstown and the adjacent areas. Queenstown and Gormanston in Tasmania, with a combined population of 5500 people, are virtually solely dependent on the existence of the Mount Lyell mine. From speaking to the people of Queenstown on Thursday and Friday of last week I know that the announcement of the cutbacks has caused a crisis which is causing heartache and havoc in the area. It will cause more problems further up the line.

This is my first urgency motion in the Senate. I realise that urgency motions take precedence over Government Business; so it is not my intention, since I want the Government to act and to act urgently, to speak for very long in this debate or to draw out the debate. I have taken the unusual step of moving an urgency motion because I believe that action is urgently required to overcome the specific problem and crisis which the

Queenstown, Gormanston and Zeehan areas will face as a result of the cutbacks. We are not talking of a mining township just recently established; we are talking about a well settled area, settled since the latter pan of last century. I will distribute pictures of Queenstown to honourable senators from other States so that they can see, as my colleagues from Tasmania know, that Queenstown and the surrounding areas are well settled and beautiful areas.

By virtue of hard work the people in the area, the pioneers of the area, built the Mount Lyell mine into what was described recently by Kerry Pink of the Advocate as ‘the doyen of west coast mines and amongst the great vererans of the Australian mining industry’. Not only did the workers contribute with their sweat and labour to creating a mine of this status but also the company poured millions of dollars into development of the mine. The new company, Consolidated Gold Fields Australia Ltd which took over the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd in 1 964, has spent many millions of dollars developing the mine. In late 1960 the company began a $50m program to develop new underground mines. The mines that have been worked until now are the Prince Lyell, the Lyell Tharsis, the Crown Three, the Twelve West, the Cape Horn, and the ‘A’ Lens.

To put the situation into perspective, last year the mine produced 2 215 412 tonnes of ore for the recovery of 83 254 tonnes of copper concentrate. Most of that went in exports- exports to Japan were 71 270 tonnes- and 19 601 tonnes went into local consumption through Port Kembla. Last year Mount Lyell also produced 102 135 tonnes of pyrite concentrate for Northwest Acid Pty Ltd. The mine is not short of ore reserves, which are currently proved at more than 27 million tonnes assaying at 1.46 per cent copper. By far the biggest ore body- more than 24 million tonnes- is in the Prince Lyell mine. So, here we have mineral reserves which are able to be extracted if action is taken urgently. The people are there, the community is there and the social and economic infrastructure is there. All that is required is some urgent action by governments to give a breathing space to the operation so that when the good times of higher copper prices come or when sterling improves, not only Queenstown and Tasmania, but also the whole of Australia will reap the benefit.

Against this backdrop, the announcement that was made to the men last Thursday, 4 November, came as a shock. People will say: They saw it coming’. A number of people thought that something had to be done, but the magnitude of the cuts- 40 per cent of the work force- was not envisaged. The company said in a statement to the employees, which was phoned through to my office by the secretary of the Australian Workers Union on Thursday morning:

Drastic steps are required to safeguard the future of Queenstown and operations at the Mount Lyell company. It has been decided that production will be reduced significantly with an even more significant reduction in operating costs . . . North Lyell Mines will be closed in the course of the next few months and early in the New Year the mill will reduce to a 5-day working week. At the same time the overhaul and some other sections of the West Lyell Workshops will be transferred to the main workshop area and the West Lyell Workshops closed. Other economies will be effected through closure of the sawmill, Apprentice Training Centre -

Which subsequently the State Government has decided to continue- single men’s and single staff quarters, and a general reduction in total manning in line with the reduced scale of operations. In total some 400 staff and award employees will be retrenched, leaving an operating establishment of approximately 600 persons.

It is a very savage blow indeed. But need we accept it? The mining company consistently over almost the last 2 years has brought to the attention of the Government the problems that it expected to arise. I will enumerate to the Senate the approaches that have been made so that it is a matter of record. At the end of January 1975 Dr J. F. Cairns and other then Government members visited Queenstown and had discussions with company officials. On 11 March 1975 a letter was sent to Mr Ron Davies, M.H.R.- which he subsequently forwarded to the Treasurer- outlining the company’s problems as discussed with Dr Cairns. It instanced low copper prices, the high cost of production and the heavy tax payments as a result of the removal of concessions by the Government. During 1975 the company prepared a comprehensive submission for the Industries Assistance Commission, and I will deal with those submissions and the results of the IAC inquiry in a moment.

On 12 December 1975, which was the day before the election of the Fraser Government, Sir Brian Massy-Greene, who is chairman of the company, visited the Department of Minerals and Energy. The acting Secretary of that Department, Mr Townsend, suggested that the company should await the result of the IAC inquiry before taking further action. On 15 December 1975, the chairman of the company wrote to Mr J. Scully, the Secretary of the Department of Minerals and Energy, outlining factors responsible for the financial difficulties- the need for capital to complete No. 1 shaft complex to keep the mine operating; lower copper prices, actuals and forecasts; and inflation and its effects on costs. He also pointed out the effect of mine closure on Queensland and elsewhere, including Gormanston and Zeehan, and on the Emu Bay railway, the North- West Acid Pty Ltd and the ER and S refinery at Port Kembla which refines the copper. On 19 December 1975 the chairman of the company and Mr J. P. Landrigan, met the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, who was advised that the mine could close in the absence of government assistance. Cabinet considered these submissions during January and February and in February announced that no assistance would be forthcoming.

I am informed by the company that in April 1976 the State Opposition Leader, Mr Max Bingham, wrote to Mr Anthony suggesting that he should visit Queenstown. Mr Anthony subsequently declined the invitation on 4 May 1976. During April and May 1976 the company pressed the Federal Government for time to pay $1.3m income tax which became payable on 30 April 1976 as a result of the withdrawal of taxation concessions by the Whitlam Government. Despite representations on behalf of the company by the Premier of Tasmania, the Hon. W. A. Neilson, to the Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, the Commissioner of Taxation was not authorised to remit payment beyond 30 June 1976. The company and the workers have kept the Premier, Mr Neilson, fully informed of the state of affairs at Mount Lyell. The Premier and members of his Cabinet, as well as members of the Opposition, have visited Queenstown on a number of occasions during the last 12 months. Then on 3 November 1 976 the chairman of the company, Sir Brian Massy-Greene, visited Mr Fraser and Mr Nixon to inform them of the proposed retrenchments.

I mentioned that the company had made submissions to the Industries Assistance Commission. The Commission forwarded its report to the Special Minister of State on 14 November 1975. It had been commissioned to make a report in accordance with a reference made on 17 September 1975 under section 23 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act. The submission of the company is summarised in appendix 6 of the report. I do not propose to go into it because all honourable senators have received copies of the report, but I wish to refer to a couple of matters that were mentioned in the report. On page 10 the report states:

The mines of witnesses with higher costs are remote from other centres of either mining or industrial activity. As a result, any downturn in mining activities at those locations will have much more significant implications Tor other businesses located nearby than would be the case were other major industries also located at the towns involved.

Later the report states:

For Mount Lyell the effect on employment and business activity at the associated townships of Queenstown and Gormanston would probably be more dramatic as there is virtually no alternative industrial employment in the area.

This is the reason that I have raised this matter of urgency. Because of the effect that closure of the Mount Lyell mine will have on the small communities of Queenstown and Gormanston, I believe that there is a particular case to be made out for Mount Lyell. When I first came into the Senate I was advised that the Senate was a House designed not only to uphold the rights of the States but also to protect smaller communities and the rights of minorities. I think we all are aware of the situation regarding the small communities of Queenstown and Gormanston. The people in those communities have contributed by their hard work and labour over many years. There are workers with the company whose fathers worked with the company and whose fathers before them worked with the company. They go back to 4 generations. We see that the axe has fallen and some of these workers will need to uproot their families and move out of the area in which they have lived for many years.

What is the answer? I believe the answer is that urgent action should be taken to give a breathing space. The Industries Assistance Commission recommended that the Government should offer to guarantee trading bank or other commercial borrowings arranged for this purpose, that is, for the purpose of giving a breathing space. The Commission also recommended that the guarantee should apply to both principle and interest. Anyone looking at that knows that it is completely inadequate. The Commission, as it stated, sought to devise a means which would make fewer claims on public funds than a subsidy but which would afford the operators of mines the opportunity of remaining in production if they consider that they have a viable future in the industry in the long term. Certainly the company and people with a bit of common sense know that the Industries Assistance Commission recommendation on its own will not save the situation as far as Mount Lyell is concerned. The result of the cutback will be that the mine instead of producing 22 000 tonnes of copper per annum will be reduced to producing 1 5 000 tonnes of copper per annum.

The reason for the difficult position facing the mine is mainly that the price of copper has fallen to below $1,000 a tonne. It has risen to approximately $2,000 per tonne in the last 10 years. The price has fluctuated severely in that time, but at the present moment it is below the cost of extracting and producing a tonne of copper. So we have a situation in which production will be reduced from 22 000 tonnes to 15 000 tonnes of copper.

I suggest that the Government should implement a program to buy the difference between the 22 000 tonnes currently produced and the 1 5 000 tonnes that is projected to be produced per year, and that it stockpile the copper concentrates at Burnie. The only alternative is to relocate and readjust the 400 workers, their families and their dependants somewhere else in Tasmania or elsewhere. Because of the employment situation in Tasmania many of those workers just will not get a job. The latest figures on unemployment which were released last week by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) snowed that for every job vacancy in Tasmania there are 10 job seekers. The position is that the workers who are bound to go from Mount Lyell will find it very difficult to get a job and the Government will have to sustain them and their families by paying the unemployment benefit and adjustment assistance. The Government will not receive the income tax it receives from the workers at the present time. The municipalities will not receive the rates that are paid at present. In short, the workers and their families, instead of being strong contributors to the economy, will become a burden on the economy.

I have been doing some analysis of the figures in respect of these matters. I have some pages of figures and am having them checked at the present time. Therefore I am not in a position to table them in the Senate. On a rough cost benefit analysis my proposal for the Government to buy the difference between the tonnage that was produced last year and the tonnage produced this year, thus saving the jobs of the 400 workers is far preferable than paying the costs of sustaining the workers who will be put out of work. Of course the copper would be the property of the Government. The Government would not be giving a grant to the company. The Government would own the copper. It could sell the copper on the international market whenever the price goes up. Some people might say that is a long wait but let me quote what Sir Brian Massey-Greene said in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Commission. He was asked:

You say in your projections you do see a substantial price increase in copper at least in the long term.

The answer was:

Yes, we do.

He was also asked:

What sort of increase do you see?

The answer was:

We would expect that the 1978-79 price of copper would be somewhere in the bracket, expressed in terms of Australian dollars, between $ 1 ,700 and $ 1 ,800 a tonne.

The Government could buy the copper from the company now at the cost to the company of producing and the maximum the Government would have to pay would be in the vicinity of about $1,500 a tonne. If the Government stockpiles the copper until 1978-79 it will make a profit and it will keep people in jobs. In order to keep up production the company would have to continue with its development plans. That is where the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission could come in- that is to say, the recommendations relating to the provision of guarantees for borrowings arranged for the purposes of development. On page 1 5 of the IAC report it does say:

An administrative problem associated with the guarantee proposal will be to decide what items of expenditure and revenue should be included in calculation of a cash breakeven position. For example, if a producer wished to include essential development work -

I emphasise the words ‘esential development work’- in his cash costs there would seem to be no reason to object, but a different view might be taken of a major new capital investment.

We are talking about essential development work. As recommended by the IAC there would be a guarantee on which the company could fall back for essential development work to keep up its production which is required to maintain its workers in employment.

I have taken this opportunity to move an urgency motion for the first time. I believe there is a way out of this problem. I hope that the discussions which will take place today will prove that urgent action is needed and that it will be taken. I do not believe that a Senate select committee as was foreshadowed by one honourable senator today will solve the problem. I suppose the most sanguine of people would not expect to have a report from a Senate committee within a period of 6 months and in that time the people who will have been given notice of termination of their employment will have gone down the road, will have been dislocated and dispersedwhere to, we do not know. Of the number of people to go it is interesting to see that a large number are technical and skilled workers. These are the people who, once they go from the mining area, will be hard to get back into this area. The Government should recognise it costs a lot of money to train such people. This also is an investment which I believe should be preserved. It is one of the investments that I mentioned in the terms of the urgency motion, which I commend to the Senate for support.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– One would imagine from the speech of Senator Harradine that he did not know that possibly right at this moment the Premier of Tasmania is meeting the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Malcolm Fraser). As I understand it, it is a meeting for which the place, time and date have been fixed for some days. Perhaps it is only coincidence that this urgency motion has come this afternoon right at the very moment when discussions are taking place between those 2 gentlemen. Perhaps it is also coincidental that the Premier of Tasmania, I understand, said that if his 24-point plan were not accepted by the Prime Minister today he would call an immediate State election in Tasmania. Perhaps all this is but coincidental. One would really like to think that none of this was coincidental but that the whole purpose of the debate this afternoon was about the plight of both the company and the people employed on the west coast of Tasmania.

Senator O’Byrne:

– That is not coincidental.

Senator WITHERS:

-I am grateful for the honourable senator’s interjection.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The plight of the people in Queenstown is not coincidental; it is real.

Senator WITHERS:

-It is real and it has been coming for a long time, as you will discover in a moment. One would imagine that this is a matter which has been brought to the Government’s attention just this afternoon. The Government has been concerned about this matter for quite a deal of time. It is not some new found interest, as Senator Harradine and Senator O’Byrne, who keeps interjecting, have evidently discovered. The facts of the situation in Tasmania in general and the west coast of Tasmania in particular have been continually brought to the Commonwealth Government’s attention not only by the Liberal senators who sit in this place but also by the members of the House of Representatives and in particular by the honourable member for Braddon, Mr Ray Groom.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Groom and despondency they call him in Queenstown.

Senator WITHERS:

-At least he is the member. I do not suppose Senator O ‘Byrne is that popular, if he ever goes there- if he knows where the place is. It is all very well for him to make interesting remarks about a young, able, dynamic member of the House of Representatives whose representation must be such a vast change to the electors of Braddon from the dreary representation in the past. It was so bad that I remember once being in the town and seeing Mr Davies’ sign hanging by but one rusty screw outside his parliamentary office. I thought that that not only summed up the man; it summed up the class of representation he gave to the electors of Braddon.

Anyone would think that the Prime Minister and the Government were not interested. Otherwise, why would the Prime Minister be closetted even at this moment with the Premier of Tasmania? Evidentally Opposition senators believe that the Premier of Tasmania is incapable of putting his case this afternoon and they feel they must join forces with Senator Harradine to tell him how he ought to go about it.

What has been overlooked in the debate so far is that what is happening in Queenstown is that the people there are but reaping the tragic whirlwind of the Whitlam Government’s inflation. I shall give some figures which will show the extraordinary position that has developed. Something has been said here about copper prices. I should like to list these copper prices: In 1 97 1 -72 the average price of copper was $A927 per tonne; in 1972- 73, $999; in 1973-74, $1,615; in 1974-75, $998; in 1975-76, $1,063; and to 3 November this year, $996. In 1971-72 wages cost the company $7,913,000; in 1972-73, $8,258,000; in 1973- 74, $10,407,000; in 1974-75, $12,481,000; and in 1975-76, $13,052,000. In 1971-72 the price of copper was $927 per tonne and wages amounted to $7.9m. This year, when the price of copper is $996 per tonne, wages amount to $ 13.052m.

Senator Wriedt:

– The company was paying the workers too much, was it?

Senator WITHERS:

-I am just saying that this is the burden of inflation. I turn to the employment figures. In 1971-72, 1433 workers were employed; in 1972-73, 1375; in 1973-74, 1384; in 1974-75, 1332; and in 1975-76, 1072. Employment has been falling. But if one looks at average earnings one sees that in 1971-72, when copper was worth $927 per tonne, average earnings were $5,522 a year. In 1972-73 the figure was $6,006; in 1973-74, $7,520; in 1974-75, $9,370; and in 1975-76, $12,175. I repeat, the price of copper at the commencement of the period was $927 and average wages were $5,522 a year per worker and the total wages bill was $7. 9m. Five years later, the price of copper is $996 per tonne- a marginal movement- the total wages bill was $ 13m, and average earnings were $12,000 a year. Honourable senators wonder why the company is in problems. I turn now to look at State government charges.

Senator Wright:

- Mr Neilson ‘s Government.

Senator WITHERS:

– Yes. In 1972-73 payroll tax charges were $205,000; in 1973-74, $412,000; in 1974-75, $650,000; and in 1975-76, even with the rebates, $639,000. In 1972-73 copper was worth $999 a tonne and the company was paying $205,000 payroll tax. This year copper is worth $996- $3 less- and the company is paying $639,000 in payroll tax. I turn to workers compensation payments, a matter which is entitled to be taken into account. In 1971-72 these payments cost the company $300,000; in 1972-73, $418,000; in 1973-74, $448,000; in 1974-75, $1,400,000; and in 1975-76, $1,200,000.

Senator Wriedt:

– What does that prove? What does the last point prove?

Senator WITHERS:

– What I am getting at is that if honourable senators take 1972-73- they are more comparable figures, that being the last year of our previous administration- when copper was worth $999 per tonne, and this year when it is worth $996 per tonne, and then if they look at what inflation has done to this mining company in that period, the wages bill having risen from $8m to $13m and the price for its product being the same, its payroll tax payments having risen from $200,000 to $600,000 and its workers compensation charges having risen from $418,000 to $1,200,000, they should not wonder why the company is going broke.

Senator Wriedt:

– You would wonder why anybody would support free enterprise on that basis?

Senator WITHERS:

– Why is it going broke? It has nothing to do with free enterprise. It just shows the wickedness of the policies pursued by the previous Labor Government which have bankrupted a company, ruined a State and are now putting the employment of the workers which Labor purports to represent in jeopardy. In fact their employment is almost destroyed. Members of the Opposition will have the cheek to go to Queenstown and shed their crocodile tears about how they sympathise with the workers in the town and how sorry they are for them. Effigies of members of the Opposition ought to be burnt at a public meeting by the citizens of these towns. It is not just Queenstown that this has happened to ; it has happened in my own State to the goldmining industry in Kalgoorlie. Place after place around Australia was ruined by 3 years of economic mismanagement with the mad, lunatic policies pursued by the previous Minister for Minerals and Energy who appeared to devote most of his energies to borrowing $4,000m from Mr Khemlani rather than getting on with protecting the jobs and livelihoods of the people within Australia.

That is really what this debate is all about. It is of no use members of the Opposition coming in at the eleventh hour with proposals. The previous Government set out on a deliberate path to milk or to make the rich mining companies pay. What about the things the Labor Government said. It said that all miners were hillbillies and that the Government ought to have no sympathy for them. What is the end result of the policies of the Labor Government? Mines are closing down and people are losing their employment. All of a sudden Labor Party members say that that is the trouble with the system; that is the trouble with capitalism. The trouble with the system, of course, was the enforcement of the stupid socialist policies of the previous Government. Labor Party members can talk as much as they like; that is where the blame lies. They must pick up the blame for it.

The Tasmanian Government, of course, is now very worried about all this. It has an election to be held on Saturday, 4 December. Evidently everybody in Tasmania knows that, except the Tasmanian Labor senators. As I understand the position, halls are being booked, newspaper space is being booked, and all the things that normally are done before an election campaign are being done. Nobody appears to be in any doubt that Saturday, 4 December, is the day. So everything is being orchestrated for the election to take place on that day. The Premier of Tasmania is in Canberra today hoping that he can obtain an excuse to say: ‘I really did not want an election. I would rather have waited until next year. But because the Prime Minister has been so wicked to me I must go back to Tasmania and hold an election right away’. As my colleague, Senator Durack, said at question time, the whole thing is being stage managed. But it is being stage managed in such a blatant manner that even those people who normally would support the Labor Party in Tasmania ought to wake up to what is happening.

One can quite properly ask this question: If the Tasmanian Government believes that it ought to be in government and that it ought to be allowed to govern, what is it doing about the problem of Queenstown? It is no use the Tasmanian Government saying that it is short of money because, as my colleague, Senator Carrick, has said in this place a number of times, the Tasmanian Government is literally rolling in money. It has $ 1 7m left over from last year and this year under the federalism plan it is receiving $4m more than it would have received under the Whitlam formula. So, carrying forward last year’s surplus, this year it has an extra $21m to spend. In what areas is it going to spend that money? It complains that we will not get on with establishing the Maritime College in Launceston, but at the same time it will not give us some Crown land so that we can use the money which we otherwise would have to spend on land on commencing the site works.

Senator Wriedt:

– That is not true.

Senator WITHERS:

-My colleague, Senator Carrick, said that in this place the other day. No objection was raised to what he said. Nobody jumped up and down saying that he was doing the wrong thing. The Tasmanian Government has all the money in the world. It has brought in what it believes to be a great Budget. It has been able to reduce taxes hither and thither, obviously working up to an election.

I suppose the greatest condemnation of the Neilson Tasmanian Labor Government is that now that there is freight equalisation northbound there are vast opportunities for the Tasmanian Labor Government to get off its tail and to encourage industries to go to Tasmania, because there is no longer the freight disadvantage which has existed right up almost to this year when freight equalisation was introduced, and that Government is not doing that. Why will industry not go to Tasmania? It will not do so because it does not want to receive the treatment that the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd received during those years when it saw its payroll tax treble in 4 years and its workers compensation costs treble in three to four years. These are the matters which the Tasmanian Labor Government ought to be bending its mind and energies, if any, to correcting rather than its Premier coming to Canberra and expecting to be rescued 3 or 4 weeks before polling day.

Senator Chaney:

– He would like us to print some money.

Senator WITHERS:

-The days when the Federal Government printed money are gone. We also need to remind ourselves of another matter which Senator Harradine mentioned in his speech, and that is the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission that the Government guarantee repayment of principal and interest on trading bank or other commercial borrowings to bring copper-producing companies to a cash break even position from January 1976 to June 1977. That recommendation was accepted by the present Federal Government on 17 May of this year. The interesting thing is that the Mount Lyell company has not approached the Government for assistance following that decision.

Senator Harradine:

– It is ridiculous, if you analyse it.

Senator WITHERS:

– At one moment in this place the IAC is having praise heaped upon it for its hard-headed, sensible economic approach to these things. I have not heard any honourable senator complain about that decision of the IAC. Evidently it was arrived at after public hearings and after submissions were put to it by people from a wide range of fields including, I assume, the Labor Government of Tasmania. The Industries Assistance Commission came down with a report on 14 November 1975. As I recall the situation, that recommendation was accepted by the Government on 17 May 1976, and the Government’s acceptance of that recommendation was announced by the Government. Since 17 May, the Mount Lyell company, for reasons best known to itself, has not approached the Government for assistance following that decision. I think that in itself points up the fact that the Mount Lyell company does not have much real confidence in its own future.

I wish to deal with another point which was raised by Senator Harradine. He dismissed casually and out of hand what he would regard as the futility of setting up a Senate select committee. One of the Labor Opposition senators said: ‘Oh yes; people would starve in the meantime, while the Senate committee virtually did nothing for 6 or 9 months’. I think Senator Rae’s notice of motion has been circulated around the chamber. He intends to move that, unless otherwise ordered, that select committee shall report to the Senate on or before 9 December.

Senator Rae:

– As the King Island Committee did.

Senator WITHERS:

-As did the Senate Select Committee on Shipping Services between King Island, Stanley and Melbourne.

Senator Grimes:

– What happened as a result of that Committee ‘s inquiry?

Senator WITHERS:

-What did the Labor Party do about that? It did not do a thing. The fact is that the Senate committee brought in a proper report. I do not remember reading newspaper reports of the Labor Caucus considering it or of Senator Grimes complaining week after week that the Senate Select Committee on King Island did nothing about the matter.

Senator Grimes:

– He was not here.

Senator WITHERS:

-He was not here. We did not hear Senator Devitt or Senator O ‘Byrne complaining and we did not hear Senator Wriedt rowing in Cabinet week after week because King Island -

Senator Wright:

– They scuttled a ship in the port of Melbourne.

Senator WITHERS:

-Did they? That is an example of how a Senate committee can get the job done if it is prepared to work over weekends. Senator Rae’s subsequent motion suggests that there be only 4 members of the committee, two from this side of the chamber, one Opposition senator and one Independent senator. Those 4 senators would be quite prepared to work on the weekends, and to work on Mondays and Fridays- a week of recess is coming up shortlyand they could present their suggestions, as to what ought to be done, by 9 December- maybe even earlier.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– You are being cruel. Senator O ‘Byrne is going white at the gills.

Senator WITHERS:

-He would love to go off and do that. He would not want to go campaigning for the Tasmanian Labor Government. He would rather be trying to solve the problems of the people of Queenstown. He would not want simply to wander around Tasmania electioneering. He would want to be taking evidence to help to solve the problems of the people of Queenstown.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I will pick out the highlights of your speech and take them down to the people of Queenstown. They will be absolutely ashamed of you.

Senator WITHERS:

-There you are! Senator O’Byrne is going to indulge in selective quotation, in selecting the highlights of my speech and quoting them totally out of context. I am delighted that Senator O’Byrne has forewarned the people of Queenstown that that is how he operates. He ought to be ashamed of himself. Senator O’Byrne, who has been in this chamber for a long time, is saying to me: ‘I intend deliberately to take pieces out of your speech, to take them out of context, and to use them around Queenstown’. Well, Senator O’Byrne, I am delighted to hear your admission. I think there is nothing in the motion itself to which the Government takes exception. Of course there is an urgent and immediate need for governments to act to preserve human and economic investment, not only in Queenstown but also in all towns. We do not mind the wording of the motion. The Government does understand the problems associated with the possible retrenchment of more than 400 people and the consequent dislocation of their families. Do honourable senators opposite think we on this side of the chamber are not concerned about it? Do they think governments are not concerned about it?

Senator Harradine:

– It makes one wonder, sometimes.

Senator Grimes:

– After hearing your speech it makes one wonder.

Senator WITHERS:

-One would think that if the honourable senator were concerned about these matters he would be doing other things to help. One would think that Senator Grimes would be trying to get some sense into the waterside workers and the maritime unions that have almost ruined Tasmania through their industrial actions in the shipping trade during the last 30 years. We do not hear Senator Grimes making speeches about that. All these other problems flow from industrial unrest. The disabilities which Tasmania has suffered have arisen not so much from the fact that it is an island State as from the fact that so many people from Tasmania on the other side of the chamber have never been prepared to deal with the real problems, the real issues and the real disabilities which face that State and which fall into 2 categories, I suppose. The first category is that Tasmania has had 30 years of Labor government, which is one of the real disabilities.

Senator Rae:

– Thirty-nine years.

Senator WITHERS:

-There has been a Labor Government in Tasmania for 39 years and that is perhaps the greatest disability which the State has suffered. The second category is the industrial turmoil which no State Labor government and certainly no Labor senator or Labor member from Tasmania has ever been prepared to talk about, let alone been prepared to tackle. This matter has been raised at a late hour. As I said, the Prime Minister and the Premier of Tasmania are discussing these matters this afternoon. I give Senator Harradine the benefit of the doubt that he is not playing politics, but I imagine that honourable senators opposite who will follow me in this debate will be playing politics and one can almost anticipate and debate what they will be saying. I assure the Senate that the Government is concerned about this problem. It is concerned about the problem because it has been brought to the Government’s attention by honourable senators and honourable members who sit on the government side of the Parliament. The Government will not oppose the motion because it is concerned about the matter and it is using its best endeavours to alleviate hardship. I hope that honourable senators opposite will take much the same view and that they will be concerned also to alleviate hardship and not promote the fortunes of the Tasmanian State Labor Government for 4 December next.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I should like to be associated with this motion and indicate that the Labor Party is supporting the proposal before the Senate. I want to address my comments principally to this matter today on the basis of my experience as one who has actually lived and worked in the community of Queenstown on the west coast of Tasmania. Unlike the previous speaker in the debate, the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers), who seemed to be preoccupied with statistics and various elements of economics, I should like to make some observations on the human tragedy that is inherent in the situation that is arising on the west coast of Tasmania.

I went to Queenstown shortly after the war in 1946, despite the warnings from many people who said: ‘It is cold, it is wet, it is isolated, it is rugged and living is difficult’. I guess there was a good deal of truth in that. They failed to tell me about the qualities of the people who lived there. This applies to generations of people. It applies to the pioneers who went into the rugged west coast of Tasmania, opened up the mining areas, established the little villages and provided the elementary and basic services which were required to sustain them in those days. Through the years they saw through their own efforts and cooperation with the management of the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd the development of the towns and centres which provided the way of life for the people in the remote and rugged areas of the west coast of Tasmania. I learnt to live with those people, to share their experiences and to engage in sport and various cultural activities with them. I learnt the qualities of the people who seemed to gravitate to the mining areas and who found enjoyment, happiness and contentment in the sort of conditions that obtained there and who brought up their families in those areas. It was fascinating to me, as one newly arrived in an area such as that from the rich agricultural country of the north west of Tasmania, to note that people who had lived on the west coast and who had given their services to their country by working in the mines- because they could not actively participate in the Armed Services- to produce those basic materials of war that were so necessary, shortly after the war decided that they would go to live somewhere else. It was remarkable how many people came back to Queenstown to live and said: ‘There is no place like this. This will do us. There is something that we can get out of life here that is not available to us anywhere else’. It seemed to become part of the life of the people. The way of life in Queenstown was deeply ingrained in them. They are the sort of people about whom we are now concerned. In his opening remarks on this matter Senator Harradine said that Queenstown is a community of about 5000 people who are wholly dependent on mining, as distinct from many other mining areas that one can recall throughout Australia where, when the mine was worked out, the people were able to engage in some other sort of activity. That cannot happen in Queenstown because there is no opportunity for any other type of human activity in that area.

I am conscious of the fact that I have only a few minutes in which to address my comments to the Senate. I can remember the mines on the west coast of Tasmania- at Queenstown in particularproviding during the depression years employment which was not available to people anywhere else. I can remember- I was reminded by the comment made by Senator Harradinethat the industrial relations which have existed at Queenstown, and particularly in Queenstown, since 1927 have been very good. In 1927 there was a serious industrial upheaval at Queenstown but ever since then the mine management and the employees, through their unions and representatives in the various industrial areas, have come together at regular intervals to work out a system of operation between management and the employees which has led to a very happy relationship. I think it is unique in the history of Australian industrial relations that Queenstown has been able to sustain such a happy industrial situation. I am quite certain that the feelings of the employees at this time are shared to a very substantial degree by the management of the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd.

I knew 2 general managers of the Mount Lyell company who, I think, were born on the west coast, who certainly grew up there, who went away and studied rnining engineering and who later came back as general managers of the Mount Lyell mines. There is a good relationship between the management and the people who worked in the mines. For instance, I have seen the general manager of Mount Lyell mine spend a whole Sunday umpiring cricket. That is an example of the relationship that has always existed between the people throughout the whole community. It has been a co-operative effort and it has been a splendid, wonderful and commendable effort. As one who has worked and lived with the people in Queenstown I find it sad to observe what is happening at the present time. As I said earlier, generations have contributed to the solvency and the development of the mine, and to the development of the capital that has enabled the mine to invest in so many other activities. It has been able to invest its funds in other activities from the profits of the operation of the Mount Lyell mine in years gone by. This has enabled it to carry on through various vicissitudes and economic difficulties that have confronted it from time to time. People from the English speaking world, people from the Welsh mines, people of Irish origin, German, Italian and many other ethnic origins work happily together on the west coast as part of a happy community.

The question that has arisen is that 400 people will be retrenched. An important point to realise is that not only 400 people are involved. The number involved is 40 per cent of the total west coast community. The mine is everything in Queenstown. If 40 per cent of the employees of the mine are dismissed and have to go elsewhere the impact will be not only on those 400 people but also on their families. I should like to refer to an article in the Tasmanian Press today which stated that one man with 10 children has been affected by the retrenchments and has to go to some other part of the country to find himself a job. Where does a miner with special skills find employment suitable to his qualifications and earn an income commensurate with the sort of income he has had in the past? If he does not obtain employment he falls back on social welfare benefits. He and his family then have to be sustained from the public purse anyway. It is appropriate that governments should be involved. In a television interview the other night the general manager of the company said that the Tasmanian Labor Government could not have done more than it had. He said he regretted that he could not say the same for the Federal Government.

Senator Rae:

– He will have time to regret that statement because it is a lie.

Senator DEVITT:

– If it is a lie the honourable senator can tell him that. The people of Tasmania accepted it as the truth of the situation coming from the top executive person in the community. Implicit in the proposition that Senator Rae is to put tomorrow is his suggestion that we should do certain things- in particular, we should determine the nature of assistance from the Commonwealth Government which is both practical and warranted and which will alleviate the social and economic dislocations of the Queenstown area of Tasmania. That is what we are about. But do we need to set up a Senate select committee to determine that? Implicit in Senator Rae’s proposition is an acceptance of the social and economic difficulties of that area. If the Tasmanian Government can weigh in why cannot the Federal Government do so? When Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd was in trouble the Federal Labor Government of the day said: ‘You have a special short term problem. We will help you. We will make provision to meet the interest charges on the money that you borrow’. I think the amount needed to see the company through its difficulty at the time was $660,000 or thereabouts.

There is a human problem in the Queenstown area. We talk about economic problems and statistics; I am talking about human beings. I am talking about people with families and communities of people who have learned to live and work together. It is not a one-way street. I have seen and been involved with the people of the west coast of Tasmania in the co-operative effort that saved the mine there in 1947. Every man jack worthy of his name in the town turned out on the night of the great fire of 1947. One man with 8 children in his family went in to the powder magazine. He said: ‘I will go in there and I will stop any fires that start there, because this is my livelihood. This is where my family grew up. I am bound as generations before me have been to do all I possibly can to sustain this industry so that men in future can have employment here. ‘ I saw others risk their lives when the sawmill caught fire 3 times that night. Thousands of gallons of chemical reagent could have exploded at any time and wiped out the whole area. This is the sort of involvement people had and still have in the west coast mines. I venture to say that if a similar situation arose today those same people would turn out and do the same thing again.

Those of us who are familiar with the history of the west coast will recall the tragedy of 1912 when 42 miners lost their lives. Their brother miners went into the mine and risked their livesthey were duly rewarded in due course- to save their fellow workers. This is the sort of spirit that obtains on the west coast. They are strong and rugged people. I know that because I lived with them and engaged in the daily activities of normal persons in the community. I lived the life of those people. Over the years people have invested in property in the town. They have bought homes. What happens to those? Nobody will want them if the mine becomes insolvent. Who will buy homes in a town which has no other industry and nothing else to sustain the local populace? There are the makings of a human tragedy unless governments- only governments can do this- step in and help to alleviate this great problem. I was delighted to read in the Press the other day that during the course of the previous day the 2 opposing parties in the Tasmanian Parliament came together despite even the impending election. They were so conscious of the problem that they were prepared to come together, sink their political differences, and endeavour to arrive at a solution to the problem, which is a human problem before anything else. If it is not the function of governments to help and sustain people and communities I do not know what is.

We have talked about the particular skills of people in the mining industry, skills developed over a great many years. There is a great love of mining. It somehow gets into the blood of people. When it gets to them that is their life. I remember a story concerning the general manager of the Mount Lyell copper mine who has become very well known in recent years. I want to tell this little story because it has a relationship to the feeling and spirit that exist in that community. There was a need to remove a substantial rock area of overburden. The company put in what was called a T-sap drive. It drove into this overburden which had no copper in it and loaded it with 1000 cases of gelignite. When the general manager, who was a competent engineer, was asked whether it would be a great spectacle, he said: ‘No, I do not think it will be. Firstly, my engineering knowledge tells me that it will not be a spectacle. The purpose of this will be to explode the hill and break it up so that it can be moved off with bulldozers. Secondly and more importantly, the experienced miners I have on the staff tell me that they will come up out of the mine and will sit on the top of it and eat their crib while the explosion of 1000 cases of gelignite takes place.’ I observed this incident, as many people in the community did. In fact, the miners were dead right. They had such a knowledge and understanding of the mining industry that they were able to tell the engineer who had planned the explosion according to the engineering skills he had acquired what would happen.

That is part of the picture which I think we must bear in mind when we look at the total scene in this mining community. Another problem that the Mount Lyell copper mine has to face is that for the last thirty or so years it has worked in a very low grade ore. In fact, the flotation process which takes copper out of the crushed ore is so refined that it works on the basis of a recovery of 0.5 per cent to 0.75 per cent of the ore treated. When it gets over the quality of 0.75 per cent there is a loss of copper. The trouble is that when working with such low grade ore there is a need to process such a substantial quantity of ore. This does not take place at Bougainville where the miners are working on rich ore. When we talk about economics and the wage factor let us also take into account the physical properties of the area itself. So much low grade ore has to be treated to enable the mine to run on a proper economic level. I can see that my time has almost expired. I hoped at the outset to draw attention to the human problem, to the wonderful relations that have always existed, apart from a very brief period in 1927, between the management of the mine and the people in the community, to the co-operation that has always existed between those people and to the fact that the management has acknowledged the wonderful contributions of the State of Tasmania.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I commence by indicating my general support, along with that already indicated by the Leader of the Government in this chamber, (Senator Withers) for the general tenor of the urgency motion. It is a matter of urgency and great seriousness. It arises as a result of no fault on the part of the people most directly concerned, that is the people of Queenstown in Tasmania. In the remarks I propose to make I do not want it to be forgotten at any time that I am totally supporting the raising of a concern in relation to this matter as I have done in the past and will continue to do. But I wish to make this point at the start: There appears to be a blatant, cynical attempt by the State Labor Government in Tasmania to make political capital, to gain political kudos out of stunting in relation to the lives and futures of the people of the west coast. So blatant is it that I have no doubt that the amphitheatre-like opencut at Mount Lyell will be renamed the Neilson grandstand.

Senator Devitt:

– That would be a good thing if it saved the mine, would it not?

Senator RAE:

– If it saved the mine, as Senator Devitt says, it would be a good thing, but let us look at the facts. The facts are these: First, Mr Neilson, who now expresses his concern, was told on Friday, 29 October, of the impending action to be taken by the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd. He sat on that information for 6 days. The company sat on it too before it eventually got round to telling the Federal Government. When it did tell the Federal Government about it, it did not request any assistance. In fact, it indicated that it wished the closure, to the extent to which it was programmed, to go ahead so it could relieve itself of what it appeared to regard as an unwanted part of the work force. So great was Mr Neilson ‘s concern that he sat on the information he had for 6 days, doing nothing but preparing to use it in an election campaign stunt. He did nothing about the real problem, which is the problem of what is to happen to the people to whom reference has been made by Senator Harradine and others this afternoon. I regard that as being about as cynical as one can be.

It is quite obvious that the company believes it can be viable only if it can reduce the work force and that it decided quite some time ago to reduce it by 400 people. It is quite obvious that Mr Neilson, the Premier of Tasmania, and the General Manager of the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd, Mr Sawyer, have been in close consultation for many months. Notwithstanding an agreement which was made between the Federal and State governments to monitor what was happening at Mount Lyell in case a crisis situation should arise, Mr Neilson did nothing during 6 days to inform the Federal Government of his knowledge of what was pending at Mount Lyell. Senator Harradine talked about an urgency motion. It is made all the more urgent by the cynicism of Mr Neilson.

In the short time available to me let me go on to make some other points. There have been at least 6 occasions on which the honourable member for Braddon, Mr Ray Groom, to whom reference has already been made, has had discussions with Mr Sawyer. On each of those occasions he was told that there was nothing the Government could do and that the company was not seeking assistance from the Government. The most recent of those discussions was on 23 October. It is suggested by some, in particular it is suggested by Mr Sawyer, that the Commonwealth Government has in some way let the company and the people of the west coast down. Yet Mr Groom is able to confirm and state the exact times and places of the conversations which he has had repeatedly throughout the year in the course of his job of looking after his electorate of Braddon, in which this west coast area falls. On 23 October, as I mentioned, there was a discussion at which Mr Groom was again informed that the company was not asking the Government for anything but that decisions might have to be made depending on what happened with regard to copper prices. Senator Harradine said that copper prices had fallen and that they were below $1,000. I do not think he has done his homework in that respect because in fact they are rising. The price is now $ 1 ,045.

Senator Devitt:

- Senator Withers said they were not rising. He said they had gone down to $992.

Senator RAE:

– That is what they got down to, but if Senator Devitt likes to check the price brought on the London market yesterday he will find that it was $1,045.14, to be exact. The next point I would like to make briefly is that since the current crisis arose no request has been made by the company to the Commonwealth Government. Notwithstanding that, on an Australian Broadcasting Commission program in Tasmania Mr Sawyer made a statement which I wish to quote. His motives in all of this must be suspect. He has a record of being manager of companies which get into trouble and wind down. He is the one who seems to close them down. His record may be regarded as having some significance to the statement he made. It was blatantly political. He said:

The State Government has done a great job. Mr Neilson has shown great interest. I wish I could say the same for the Federal Government. Now we have pressed the Federal Government for assistance on a number of occasions and there is just no consideration forthcoming.

In answer to that I indicate that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) this afternoon stated in answer to a question that no request for assistance had been made since the crisis arose. Senator Withers also referred to this fact. I have mentioned the 6 conversations Mr Groom had with Mr Sawyer. I ask: Who in those circumstances is playing politics? On Melbourne television Mr Sawyer said the problem was entirely one caused by world copper prices and there was nothing the Government could do. Again I ask: Why the difference between the statements? Was it something totally for Tasmanian consumption that Mr Sawyer was carrying on with?

Let us look at the multinational corporation which employs Mr Sawyer as General Manager for the Mount Lyell part of its operations. It is owned by Consolidated Goldfields Australia Ltd, which is owned by Consolidated Goldfields

Ltd of the United Kingdom. It has a controlling interest in Renison Ltd. There is not an inconsiderable degree of concern and even suspicion amongst residents of Queenstown as to what has been going on with this multinational corporation reorganising its affairs perhaps to its best commercial advantage- something which it is entitled to do. In what has been going on with the share sales and the share reorganisation, why has it been so tough and so harsh with some of the shareholders as it has been with a resident of Queenstown, whom I shall not name? He is a retired man with a few shares in Mount Lyell. He was ill with the flu during the period when the share transactions were taking place. As soon as he was better, which from recollection was about 2 days after the closing date for applications for additional shares, he applied to take up his entitlement. He was refused. What did I get from the Chairman of the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. when I took up the issue? I was told:

It is a fact that a number of shareholders for one reason or another failed to meet the initial deadline, and of course their shares which were not taken up were distributed to those shareholders who wished to acquire additional shares.

I asked for a specific reply. Who got the shares that were forfeited? I have not yet got a reply. I would like to know the answer.

Senator Harradine:

– Additional shares in what?

Senator RAE:

– I am talking about when the reorganisation with the sale of Renison and Queenstown Investments was taking place, together with the buy back of Mount Lyell and all the other transactions which took place. I will not use any more harsh words at this stage. Let me simply indicate that there is far more in relation to this and the operation of the activities on the west coast than so far has been put forward in the Press or in the chamber. In no way am I denying the importance of the people of the west coast or the opportunity of the Mount Lyell company to continue to operate. I will support wholeheartedly any measures that can be taken by the Commonwealth Government. I have played a part in suggesting a number which can be taken, and I hope they will be taken following the discussions which have been taking place this afternoon between the Tasmanian Premier and the Prime Minister. But I regard it as unfortunate when a company starts to play politics in such an obvious way as this company has. I pay tribute to the work which Mr Ray Groom has done over the past few days in particular. Following the announcement concerning Mount Lyell he spent 3 days in Tasmania investigating the matter fully and preparing a full report for the Commonwealth Government. Since he became a member of Parliament he has been constantly in touch with the Mount Lyell company.

I would like to know, for instance, why that company has been pushing so hard the policy of selling to its employees their houses. This is another aspect which is of importance. The company is selling to its employees their houses. In normal circumstances this would be a good thing. But the whole time retrenchments have been steadily taking place and the work force is now down to less than half of what it was not very long ago. Many of the people who have bought the houses have invested their life’s savings in them and will now face the risk of losing their life’s savings rather than perhaps the company losing its investment in the houses which it has been selling off. Queenstown happens to be a peculiar mining town. Over 70 per cent of the houses there are privately owned. This is just one further aspect of the incredible problem of relocation of retrenched workers if this is to be pursued as policy. Who is going to buy the houses? Are the people to leave, to walk out, to just forfeit their savings? Or will they find themselves in a position where they have no real option but to stay there, residing in their houses and drawing unemployment benefits until such time as the mine can take on further employees again?

If the attitude which apparently has been displayed by the mine management is any indication, one wonders whether it will ever expand its employment. Why is it that the mine has not sought any government assistance? Why is it that the mine wants to play politics on this issue? Why is it that the mine has been engaging in a number of aspects of reorganisation which at least require some explanation, such as the hedging operations, from which it profited by $8m in 1975 but which have not been explained in the company reports, and the situation whereby it does not pay any mining royalties and pays precious little tax but makes plenty of money? I suppose that that is a good operation.

As to the future of copper, it is necessary to bear in mind that some 2 million tons of copper is stockpiled around the world- a large part of it held by speculators who are being forced to sell copper which they bought at higher prices, thereby artificially depressing the price of copper on the world markets. How long it will take to sell that 2 million tons of copper is a matter for speculation, but it appears that it will take quite some time. In summary, I express my sympathy and, I am sure, the sympathy of all members of the Liberal and National Country Parties for the individual people of the west coast area who have been affected. We will do what we can to overcome the problem. But the situation will not be helped by grandstanding by Mr Neilson; nor will it be helped by political attacks by the general manager of the company.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I am pleased to support Senator Harradine ‘s urgency motion concerning the problem which has arisen at Queenstown. I have found this debate interesting in 2 regards, in listening to the 2 speakers from the Government side this afternoon. I thought that we were to have a debate on the problems of the people of Queenstown, the problems of the employees of the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Ltd, and what we as a Parliament and the Government might be able to do for them. Senator Harradine spoke for half an hour and listed carefully the problems that are arising at Queenstown. He listed carefully the dates of the approaches by the Mount Lyell company to the Government. He summarised carefully some of the recommendations in the Industries Assistance Commission report.

He was followed by Senator Withers, who did not seem at all concerned about the people of Queenstown or the people of Mount Lyell. I remind honourable senators that the first thing Senator Withers did was by implication to accuse Senator Harradine of staging this debate for the purposes of the election of the State Labor Government. Senator Harradine smiles. Senator Townley smiles. I am not surprised. That was an extraordinary accusation to make about Senator Harradine who found out about this case on Thursday and went immediately to Queenstown to see what he could do about it. He is now accused of staging a debate and requesting the Senate to express its concern for the people of Queenstown and Mount Lyell for the purposes of re-electing the State Labor Government. Then Senator Withers said, quite contrary to what Senator Rae said, that he could not see why this urgency motion was being moved, because for a long time the Government had been aware of what was happening at Mount Lyell and could see this situation coming. The Government’s spokesman on this subject in this House, Senator Withers, said that the Government could see this coming for a long time. Yet now 400 people- 40 per cent of the work force of this mining companyhave been given notice, and the Government still has not done anything. Senator Withers then proceeded to quote endless figures to show that the last Federal Labor Government was responsible for all the problems of the

Mount Lyell mine and that those problems were compounded by the policies of the State Labor Government. Senator Rae then told us that the company running the mine is in cahoots with the State Government and that this is a political stunt to re-elect the State Government. I ask honourable senators opposite to get together and make up their minds about what is happening at Queenstown. If they can make up their minds, perhaps then they can decide what can be done to help those 400 people- perhaps there will be more later- who have been put out of work.

Some of the things which Senator Rae said about this multinational company may well be true. I questioned and trade unionists in Queenstown have questioned the policy of the company over the last 3 years of encouraging its employees to buy the company houses. But I believe that the malicious and vicious personal attack on Mr Sawyer, the general manager of the mine, was unnecessary and was not supported by any evidence. Remember that Senator Withers told us that the mine was suffering from the Tasmanian Labor Government’s evil actions. Senator Rae told us that the mining company was in cahoots with the State Labor Government. I can understand Senator Rae’s sensitivity because a report in the Examiner of 6 November had this to say:

Mr Sawyer also attacked the Federal Government’s unsympathetic attitude towards Mount Lyell … Mr Sawyer said that State Government had done a great job for Mount Lyell. It sent Ministers here yesterday, and Mr Neilson has personally taken a great interest in our problems over the past 1 8 months - not 6 days. Mr Sawyer was reported as saying:

I wish I could say the same for the Federal Government.

We have asked it for assistance on a number of occasions, and there’s just no consideration forthcoming’.

I believe that Senator Harradine listed the number of occasions on which the company has approached the Federal Government for help.

Senator Rae:

– I said that there were 6 occasions when Mr Groom had seen the manager over the past 12 months.

Senator GRIMES:

-Mr Groom could not remember a conversation that took place 2 hours ago, let alone 6 days or 6 weeks ago. I point out that Queenstown, like all mining communities, is a cohesive, socially knit community which sticks together. This social .cohesion is made all the more important and all the more strong by its isolation. Despite Senator Withers’ remarks, Queenstown and the Mount Lyell mining company have a record second to none in this country as far as industrial disputes are concerned.

The unions involved in the Mount Lyell mine get together, talk together and bury their differences.

Last Sunday morning I happened to chair a meeting of the combined mine unions associated with the Mount Lyell mining company. The unions involved included the Australian Workers Union and the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, which in Tasmania in the past have been known to have differences, the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association of Australia, the Electrical Trades Union of Australia, the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia and the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia- unions which in the past have not been noted for getting together as well as they should. But at that meeting there was a unanimity of opinion, there was careful discussion, and there were no fights and no arguments. They were concerned, as the unions in mining towns generally and in Queenstown in particular are, to look after the 400 people in Queenstown who have been removed from their work.

This disaster in Queenstown- that is what it is- was unexpected. We understand from Senator Rae that it was unexpected by the Government, although we understand from Senator Withers that the Government has seen this coming for a long time. It certainly was unexpected by the workers at Mount Lyell, and we have the word of Mr Sawyer and Sir Brian Massy-Greene that it was unexpected by the company. If Senator Rae has evidence to the contrary he should produce that evidence and point out exactly where the company had been deluding the Government, the workers and the people of Tasmania. This disaster that has happened to this mining town will affect not only Queenstown and the Mount Lyell mining company but also the railways which take the ore, the business people in the town, towns as far away as Burnie and the whole north-west of Tasmania. We are concerned. I will concede that Senator Rae too is concerned, but I will not concede that in the way in which Senator Withers spoke this afternoon he showed any concern for these people. Instead of showing concern he spent half an hour rubbishing the previous Labor Government, rubbishing the State Government and carrying on as though the State election had started and the election campaign was on.

Senator Rae dragged the Mount Lyell company into it and accused it of playing politics with this issue. The mining industry is an uncertain industry, as are many other industries in this time of world economic trouble. We have had industries that have got into trouble in Tasmania before. In fact, when we were in government we had difficulties with Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd when it could not get rid of its paper. The Government of which I was a supporter decided that part of the paper on which the telephone books in this country were printed should be purchased from APPM to help with its overstocking and a loan was made to APPM. This may not be the best way to solve problems in normal economic times but these are not normal economic times in this country or in the world and we will not have them for a long time. Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australia Ltd also had difficulties and came to the Government and got short term help. Employees retrenched fom the textile industry, partly as a result of tariff reductions, were also assisted. These were short term solutions but were aimed at helping the people who were affected and at alleviating the evil social effects of situations like this.

Here we have a mining company that is an efficient mining company and one whose workers are loyal to it and who demonstrate this loyalty by their low record of industrial disputes. It is a minng company which has ore reserves of some thirty or forty years. It is a mining company which has a future. Yet we have a downturn in the world copper price bringing difficulties for this company, and all that Senator Harradine is asking and all that members of the Opposition are asking is that some help be given to tide these people who are suffering from the disastrous social effects of being off work over the problem they are in and to tide this town over the problem it is in. I have no glib solutions and shall present no glib solutions, nor do I suggest that Senator Harradine or Senator Devitt presented any. It is up to governments which have at their fingertips experts to investigate this sort of problem. It is up to governments which have at their fingertips the information to sort out this problem. It is not up to me as an individual or up to Senator Harradine or anyone else to solve this problem in a glib way on his feet in this chamber.

If the Government has been aware that this has been coming for a long time it should be prepared to solve this problem. If the Government has not been investigating this problem for a long time it should be willing to come up with short term solutions to tide these people over until it has sorted out the problem. I have no personal objection to Senator Rae ‘s motion to set up a Senate select committee to investigate this issue but in view of the record of Senate select committees in the past, including the King Island shipping inquiry and the three or five Senate select committees on Tasmania’s transport problems, I have no great faith in the ability of Senate select committees to look into this problem. If Senator Rae’s aim is that the select committee should look into the son of accusations he has made about this multi-national company, I am very much in favour of that sort of solution. If Senator Rae’s accusations are true I believe that the company should be brought to book about them and I will be interested to see what sort of solution Senator Rae has if he finds out that his accusations are true.

However, the immediate problems of this town are the social problems affecting the miners and technical people who are being put off work. The immediate task is to remove the anxiety and the social problems which will inevitably arise if the Government does nothing. I offer no glib solutions. This motion expresses concern and asks for government action. The Government has the facilities at hand to find a solution to the problem, even a long term solution, but if the time is not available to sort out the long term solution I suggest that the answer is a short term solution to tide the people over until the Government has made up its mind. Then the people of Queenstown will have removed from their shoulders this anxiety which undoubtedly is affecting them now. I commend the motion.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I support the motion moved by Senator Harradine in this chamber to express this chamber’s concern for the predicament for the community of Queenstown, and it is laudable to notice that he puts it in positive terms of preserving the investment, both human and economic. I do not stay long on the question of human values but I support everything that has been said in praise of the community of Queenstown, a remarkably coordinated community and, as Senator Grimes has mentioned, one that has an undoubted record of freedom from wasteful industrial disputes. It is because of the isolation of that community which is dependent solely upon one company that the problem becomes of unique significance. We are not nursery maids here. We are responsible representatives commanding the Treasury of the country by rejection or request in respect of legislation if need be and seeing to it that those who are required to pay taxes get public justice. However, one cannot form a judgment on a situation without having a look at the causes of the situation,

Firstly, we remember the vendetta of the Whitlam Government- the Grimes Governmentstripping the mining companies of every justifiable deduction for income tax so that last year this company with a deficit on trading of about $2.5m was required to pay income tax of $1.6m or $1.3m. We should just consider that. Secondly we should notice the wage cost which was so inflamed and deliberately inflated by Mr Clyde Cameron while he was acting for Senator Grimes. The salary costs were stated by Senator Withers. These costs grew from $5. 5m in 1971-72 to $12.1m in 1975-76. Then there was the unfortunate fact that copper prices remained almost static. The figures are set out in a table which I have here, and in a moment I shall ask that the figures in detail be incorporated in Hansard. For my purpose I indicate that during the period copper prices remained static at an average of about $1,000 a tonne, although there was one upsurge to $1,615 a tonne in 1973-74.

It is totally unjust for Senator Grimes to wash his hands in the nursery where he is purifying the health of the community and to say that all this sympathy has developed in this political chamber, because there is a little electoral electrification of the atmosphere in Tasmania. Mr Neilson has arrived in Canberra- of course totally unbeknown to Senator Grimes- to hold a conference with Mr Fraser. Mr Neilson has already invited the television and news media to be at his suburban residence in Bellerive at 9 o’clock tonight to take home this great news so that it is impregnated with that political cunning which Senator Grimes seeks to disclaim but understands pretty well.

The Neilson Government in Tasmania has helped along the situation concerning the Mount Lyell mine by trebling the rate of payroll tax between 1972 and 1976. The amount paid in workers’ compensation in the same period trebled from $300,000 to $ 1 .2m. That is a fantastic increase in workers’ compensation in one period for one company. Then to show that Mr Neilson is full of the milk of human kindness and has no serum of the Connor poison to inject into the mining industry, let us go back to September last year when Mr Neilson stoutly insisted, as if for once he was going to attitudinise as a statesman, that his Budget proposal of a 2 per cent turnover tax on gross production should be imposed. The Liberal Opposition kept up its battery of criticism about the absolute nonsense of a turnover tax of 2 per cent on minerals on top of a Federal income tax increased by Whitlam on top of a payroll tax increased by Neilson. In 6 weeks Neilson- perhaps it was nihilism- amended the impost so as to impose a tax of 2 per cent on gross turnover, or 5 per cent on profit, whichever was the less. The Mount Lyell mine escaped the impost only because on a proper adjustment of all the figures it had no profit. After it was subjected to the viciously-manoeuvred income tax scale of Connor when it was deprived of all its deductions, it was faced with an income tax burden of more than $lm. In 1972 the total ore produced was 2.4 million tonnes, and in 1976 it was 2.2 million tonnes. The average assay remained about the same. The total realisable copper produced decreased from 22 000 tonnes in 1972 to 20 466 tonnes in 1976. Gross receipts from sales increased from $2 lm in 1972 to $30m in 1976. 1 ask that the details in those statements to which I have referred be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The document read as follows-

MT LYELL MINING AND RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED

Main Elements of Cost Increase

Increases in refining charges (from about $A 100 per tonne to $ A 1 50 per tonne ), shipping costs etc. over the period have significantly reduced the Company’s receipts per tonne of contained copper produced.

Wage Costs

Details of wage and salary costs, average employment and average earnings for the Company’s employees for the years 1 97 1-72 to 1975-76 are as follows:

State Charges

The main item under this heading is payroll tax, and amounts paid are as follows:

Senator WRIGHT:

-That being the benefit that Mr Neilson applied to the company, it is truly appalling that he can be represented through the media as the saviour of the company and not the predator of the company, as experience has shown him to be. I conclude by saying that it would be altogether premature to offer solutions to this problem here on the floor of the chamber when dealing with a matter of urgency, especially as practical matters are being debated in the corner of this building by the responsible Ministers- the Tasmanian Premier and the Prime Minister. It has been suggested that a solution similar to that which was applied to the problem facing the Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd should be applied to the problem concerning the Mount Lyell mine. Senator James McClelland, who applied that solution to the problem facing APPM at the very start of his term as a Minister, said that it was an ad hoc solution and that it would never be repeated. Senator Harradine has made a suggestion about stockpiling. It has been suggested that relocation assistance and travel assistance should be provided. It has also been suggested that ordinary social services should be provided. One honourable senator has suggested the use of money which would otherwise be taken up as unemployment benefit to provide an assistance fund for the workers so that they can be employed for another 3 months or while it is ascertained whether the present position regarding copper prices might pass. 1/ Senator Rae has put forward a valuable suggestion. He has suggested that a Senate select committee could quickly consider this question.

It could more intimately ascertain the facts and get them before us so that we could consider them together with the efforts that will be made in the department to see what can be done in a business-like way to prevent this crisis from causing undue hardship. Every member in this chamber, I believe, is genuinely concerned that such a laudable community as Queenstown should be resuscitated. But one does not deal with that sort of thing by ‘women’s weapons, water-drops’. One deals with it by considering factors which are designed to get money for the men who have to keep their families. The lamentable situation is that Whitlam and Neilson have so damned this enterprise that it is almost doomed. I move:

Question put.

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

AYES: 33

NOES: 25

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1734

HOMES SAVINGS GRANT AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Assent reported.

page 1734

MOUNT LYELL MINING AND RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED

Notice of Motion

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I seek leave to give notice of the other part of a motion of which I gave notice earlier today.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator RAE:

– Copies of the terms of reference have been circulated to honourable senators. The further motion of which I give notice is in the following terms:

  1. That the Committee appointed to consider the operations of the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd consist of four Senators, two to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, one to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one Independent; if no Independent nominates, the position to be filled by a Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
  2. That the Committee may proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
  3. . That a quorum of the Committee be two.
  4. That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the Senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
  5. That the Chairman of the Committee may, from tune to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.
  6. That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote.
  7. That the Committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to meet and transact business in public or private session, and to meet during the sittings of the Senate.
  8. That the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it. A daily Hansard shall be published of such proceedings of the Committee as take place in public.
  9. That, unless otherwise ordered, the Committee report to the Senate on or before 9 December 1976.
  10. That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Committee has completed its report, the Committee may send its report to the President of the Senate or, if the President is not available, to the Deputy-President, who is authorised to give directions for its printing and circulation and, in such event, the President or DeputyPresident shall lay the report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate.
    1. That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

page 1734

VOTING ARRANGEMENTS

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

-I seek leave to make a statement relating to voting arrangements.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator CHANEY:

– By arrangement between the Whips in the Senate, Senator Coleman did not vote in that last division, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the death of Senator Greenwood, and she will not vote in divisions this sitting week.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8.5 p.m.

page 1734

COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services and Leader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report on the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands for the period from 1 January 1975 to 31 December 1975.1 seek leave to move a motion in respect thereto.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

-I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper. I ask for leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1735

TAXATION STATISTICS

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services and Leader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– On behalf of Senator Cotton I present the following paper: Taxation, Taxation Statistics 1974-75, dated 1 October 1976, Supplement to the Fifty-fourth report of the Commissioner of Taxation.

page 1735

BROADCASTING SYSTEM

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report on the structure of the Australian broadcasting system and associated matters, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications relating to that report.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1735

TASMANIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS COMMISSION

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

- Mr President, I seek the indulgence of the Senate to interpose an unlisted document of which the Leader of the Opposition has a copy. I table the first report of the Tasmanian Local Government Grants Commission. In accordance with the new federalism proposals the Grants Commission was established by statute by the Tasmanian Government to distribute funds to individual local government authorities. This report details the rationale behind the distribution and the amounts of Commonwealth funds to be received by individual authorities in 1976-77. There is a shortage of copies of the report. The Leader of the Opposition has one. There will be one, of course, in the Senate records office. I suggest that honourable senators may make use of those copies.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensiand

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1735

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Role of the National

Aboriginal Consultative Committee together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs relating to that report. Due to the limited number of copies now available, reference copies of this report have been placed in the Senate records office and in the Parliamentary Library.

page 1736

STATES (PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING) BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise arrangements under which revenue from Commonwealth personal income tax collections is to be shared between the Commonwealth and State governments. The tax sharing arrangements with the States represent a central element of the Government’s federalism policy. They replace the financial assistance grants which the States received under the States Grants Acts. The present Bill, accordingly, provides for the repeal of that legislation. In addition to the arrangements for sharing personal income tax collections with State governments, a share of Commonwealth personal income tax revenue is to be provided as untied assistance for local government. A Bill in relation to the arrangements for local government will be introduced immediately after the Bill before us now, and I propose that the 2 Bills be debated cognately. Federalism policy and the tax sharing arrangements central to it were, of course, the subject of Premiers’ Conferences in February, April and June this year. The Premiers welcomed the concept of a genuine, wholehearted federalism.

Support of federalism means, of course, support of the Australian system of government, with each sphere of government- Federal, State and local- fulfilling its rightful role. Support of federalism means support of a proper distribution of powers and functions of government between these 3 spheres so that government may be responsive to the needs and preferences of the community and of individuals. Such a system of government can benefit from the input of local knowledge and talent and provides protection against excessive concentration of power. The centralist philosophy of the former Whitlam Government was, of course, directly contrary to this. The high objective of the Government’s federalism policy is, therefore, to assist effective and responsible government in the Federal, State and local spheres.

The tax sharing arrangements represent a significant step towards ensuring that the States and local government will have improved resources and greater flexibility with which to meet their responsibilities. This is not to say that the arrangements provided for by this Bill, and the Local Government Bill to be introduced hereafter, will complete the restructuring of financial arrangements between the spheres of government in Australia. For one thing, the policy, in fact, provides that the States should not be tied immutably to any one tax or set of taxes as their main source of revenue. If there are significant changes in the pattern of taxation, the States and, indeed, local government will be free to argue for appropriate changes in the arrangements.

Under the tax sharing arrangements with the States provided for in this Bill the States will receive a specified proportion of the personal income tax collections made under Commonwealth legislation. On the basis of current estimates, the effect of the arrangements will be this year to provide the States’ with $643m or almost 2 1 per cent more than they received as financial assistance grants in 1975-76. On the basis of the same estimates, the States’ entitlement in 1976-77 would be $89m more than the States could have expected to receive this year under the old financial assistance grants formula. As the economy grows, the States’ revenue under these arrangements will, of course, also expand, as is the case, for example, with State payroll tax and stamp duty. Moreover, the tax sharing arrangements, which in the second stage will provide for State surcharges and rebates, will increase the States’ flexibility in determining the pattern and level of their revenue resources.

The basic elements of the tax sharing arrangements for which this Bill makes provision may be summarised as follows:

Each year, commencing in 1976-77, the States are to receive 33.6 per cent of a base amount- referred to as the ‘base figure’ in the Bill.

The base figure is to be net personal income tax collected in the year excluding the revenue from the Medibank levy and any other special surcharges or rebates which might be applied, in appropriate circumstances, by the Commonwealth.

Irrespective of what the base figure may prove to be in any year, the Bill provides for guarantees that the States’ Stage 1 entitlements in any year will be no less, in absolute terms, than in the previous year.

The Bill also provides for further guarantees that the States’ Stage 1 entitlements will be no less in any of the first 4 years, that is, the years 1976-77 to 1979-80, than the amount which would have been yielded in that year by the financial assistance grants formula as laid down in the States Grants Act as last amended in 1975.

The total entitlement for all States is to be divided between the States so that the States’ per capita entitlements will bear the same relationship to one another as the relativities in the financial assistance grants in 1975-76.

The arrangements as a whole are to be reviewed at some time before 30 June 1981, that is, before the end of 5 years from the commencement of the new arrangements.

I turn now to the clauses of the Bill. Clause 4 sets out the definitions and is, of course, basic to an understanding of the Bill. In particular the definitions set out in clause 4 are central to the concept of the base amount to be shared with the States. Net personal income tax is, of course, defined as net of refunds of personal income tax made during the year and excludes company tax and withholding taxes on interest and dividends. Net Personal Income Tax’ as defined in the Bill is the same as the revenue item ‘Income Tax- Individuals’ shown in Statement No. 4 attached to the Budget Speech and in other Budget Papers. Clause 5 provides the machinery to deal with special Commonwealth surcharges or rebates and reflects agreements between the Commonwealth and the States that the yield or cost of special surcharges or rebates applied, in appropriate circumstances, by the Commonwealth will not be included in the base figure from which the

States’ and local government entitlements will be calculated. This aspect of the arrangements is designed to protect the States from fluctuations in their shares which might result if, for reasons of financial management, the Commonwealth should decide to introduce a surcharge or rebate after, say, the States’ Budgets have been framed and their expenditure commitments made. As the Treasurer has already emphasised, clause 5 of the Bill would certainly not be applied without proper consultation with the States.

Clause 6 provides for the Commissioner of Taxation to determine the ‘base figure’ for each year, while clauses 7 and 8 authorise the payment to each State of its share of 33.6 per cent of the base figure, or the guaranteed entitlement, whichever is the greater. In clause 7 the Bill employs the term ‘adjusted population figure’ in relation to each State as defined in sub-clause 4(1). This concept is used to calculate each individual State’s share of the total entitlement for all States as prescribed under clause 7. Honourable senators may find helpful in this regard Table 6 in Budget Paper No. 1 ‘Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities 1976-77’. Clause 9 provides for the determination of State populations by the Australian Statistician. Clause 10 provides that the Statistician’s determination in this respect and the Commissioner of Taxation’s determination in regard to clause 6 shall be conclusively presumed to be correct. Clause 13 of the Bill makes provision for review of the tax sharing arrangements as a whole before 30 June 1981. The advances and appropriation authority provided in clauses 1 1 and 12 respectively are of a machinery nature similar to those in other legislation providing for financial assistance to the States.

There are some points of understanding between the Commonwealth and the States relating to the tax sharing arrangements which appropriately are not specifically provided for in the Bill. These are documented in the Budget Paper No. 7. They include, importantly, agreement that the 4 less populous States will continue to be free to apply for special assistance grants on the recommendation of the Grants Commission in addition to their entitlements under the tax sharing arrangements. The Commonwealth has also given certain undertakings in relation to reviewing the arrangements when there are changes in Commonwealth tax legislation which have effects on the States’ entitlements of such significance as to warrant such a review. I should also mention that it is intended to make legislative provision for arrangements to periodically review the relativities between the States in their

Stage 1 entitlements. The precise nature of these arrangements is currently subject to further report by Commonwealth and State officers and consideration by governments. It has already been agreed, however, that advice in relation to this review will be sought from an independent body and that the first such review will be made before 30 June 1981.

There are some general points I wish to make before concluding. The benefits to the Statesand local government- of the tax sharing arrangements are already apparent. I have referred to the very large increase in general revenue funds which the States will receive under the provisions of this Bill- almost 2 1 per cent more than the amount of comparable funds in 1975-76. General revenue assistance for local government under the tax sharing arrangementsthe subject of a further Bill- will be 75 per cent up on comparable funds in 1975-76. Overall, payments to the States and local government in 1976-77, including the State governments’ Loan Council programs, are estimated to total $9,077m. This represents an increase of 12.6 per cent over 1975-76 after taking into account hospital prepayments, or 14.6 per cent after excluding non-recurring payments made for unemployment relief in 1975-76. As honourable senators will know, that rate of increase substantially exceeds the planned rate of increase in the Commonwealth’s own outlays as proposed in the Budget presently before the Parliament.

State and local government funds from Commonwealth Budget sources are estimated, therefore, to increase overall by a significant amount in real terms this year. Importantly, and in keeping with the Government’s federalism policy, the general purpose funds, which are increasing relatively fast this year, are available to the States and their authorities to allocate according to the priorities which they themselves determine. Unlike our predecessors we have and will emphasise general untied assistance for the States and local government. We entirely reject the notion of the Whitlam Government that Canberra knows the business of the State and local governments better than those governments themselves.

In concluding I wish to record the Government’s appreciation of the co-operative and constructive attitude which Premiers have brought to the discussion and development of the tax sharing arrangements which are embodied in this Bill. I believe the very considerable progress in the implementation of the total arrangements which this Bill represents is in large part due to the understanding and flexibility which Premiers have shown in their approach to the matter. It is a demonstration that federalism can work. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 1738

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING) BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the text of the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. In so doing, I indicate that a number of amendments made in another place and not indicated in the Bill itself will be moved in the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the sharing of personal income tax collections between the Commonwealth and, through the States, local government. It is, therefore, complementary to the Bill, which has just been introduced, which provides for the sharing of income tax collections with the States. As I said in connection with the other Bill, the tax sharing arrangements to apply between the Commonwealth, the States and local government were decided following extensive discussions between the Commonwealth and the States this year, and represent a central element in the Government’s federalism policies. State Premiers were sent a copy of the Bill when it was introduced into the House of Representatives. Following comments which the Government received from the Premiers, several amendments were made to the Bill which clarified the effect of certain of its provisions. In particular clause 6 ( 1 ) (b) of the Bill was amended to make it clear that the Commonwealth has no wish at all to exercise a power of veto over the distribution of local government assistance recommended by the States’ local government grants commissions.

Under the new arrangements provided for in this Bill, the Commonwealth will provide $ 140m in untied general purpose assistance grants to the

States in 1976-77 for distribution to local government. This is an increase of 75 per cent above the level of general purpose assistance provided to local government in 1975-76. In the present difficult budgetary circumstances, this large increase is clear evidence of the Government’s determination to do what it can to ensure that local government authorities throughout Australia have sufficient funds to effectively carry out their important functions.

In 1977-78 and each subsequent year the amount of general purpose assistance provided to local government authorities will constitute a given percentage of the previous year’s personal income tax collections so that the level of general purpose assistance provided to local government in any year will be known with certainty very early in that year. Very importantly the amount of such assistance will grow as personal income tax collections grow. The percentage of 1.52 per cent included in the Bill flows from the arithmetic, and was obtained by expressing the level of assistance provided in 1976-77 as a percentage of 1975-76 personal income tax collections, in line with the agreed arrangements.

I want to emphasise, however, that the Government regards the figure of 1.52 per cent as a minimum percentage. It is subject to review. I also take this opportunity to announce that, although it is not provided for directly in the Bill, the Commonwealth has decided it should provide a firm guarantee that the total entitlement of local government authorities as provided under this BUI will, in any year, be no less in absolute terms than in the previous year. This guarantee is, of course, similar to that provided in the States’ Entitlement Bill. I believe it will be greatly welcomed by local government authorities in Australia. The $140m of general financial assistance to be provided to local authorities in 1976-77 will be distributed between the States on the basis of the distribution recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission and agreed to by the Commonwealth and the States at the June Premiers’ Conference. Details of the amount to be provided to each State for onpassing to local government in 1976-77 are set out in clause 5 ( 1 ) of the Bill.

The percentage distribution recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission will also form the basis for allocating the assistance among the States in years subsequent to 1 976-77. Details of each State’s percentage allocations in years after 1976-77 are set out in clause 5 (2) of the Bill. Clause 12 (2) of the Bill, however, requires that before 30 June 1981 the Commonwealth Grants Commission be asked to inquire into and report to the Government whether any change is desirable in these percentage allocations. The details of how the general purpose assistance is to be distributed to local government are set out in clause 6 of the Bill. The assistance to be provided will consist of 2 separate components, a weighted per capita componentcommonly referred to as element A- and an equalisation or ‘topping up’ component- commonly referred to as element B. The weighted per capita component- element A- is required under the Bill to comprise a minimum of 30 per cent of each State’s allocation of the total level of assistance, though each State will be free to distribute a greater percentage in this form if it so desires. The States are also free to decide whether to distribute this portion of the assistance as a straight per capita grant or whether to include a weighting for other factors such as area or population density. The equalisation component of the assistance- Element B- is to be distributed having regard to the recommendations of the States’ local government grants commissions or their equivalent; the Bill requires in clause 6 (3) that local government grants commissions be established in each State by the end of 1977-78.

Clause 4 (b) of the Bill further requires that local government should be represented on each of these commissions and, on matters relating to the distribution of Commonwealth assistance to local government under this Act, that local government bodies be able to make submissions to the commissions, that the hearings of the commissions be held in public, and that their reports are to be public documents. The Bill provides in clause 6 (2) (b) broad guidelines for the operation of local government grants commissions and for assessing equalisation grants. In the final analysis, however, it will be for the States themselves to determine the detailed criteria to be adopted in the assessment of the equalisation grants to individual local government authorities.

Clause 12 ( 1 ) of the Bill requires that there be a review of the arrangements I have outlined above before 30 June 198 1. In this regard I mention the overall review of the tax sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States provided for in the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill 1976. A further matter which needs to be emphasised is the arrangements for the payment of the assistance to local government authorities. Clause 6 (I) of the Bill states that these monies are to be provided to a State for on-passing to local government in the form of a single lump sum when that State has notified the Commonwealth of the detailed allocation of the assistance to individual local governing bodies, and that the allocation has been made in accordance with clause 6 of the Bill.

These arrangements should be of great assistance to local government authorities; they should result in a substantial increase in their funds early in their financial years, this being a time when their liquidity is traditionally tight because the bulk of local government rates payments occur in the latter half of their financial years. Many local government representatives have raised this matter with myself and the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) and I feel sure that they will endorse the payments arrangements that are provided for in the Bill.

Some further details of the legislation to which I would direct attention are, firstly, that the definition of personal income tax collections is the same as the definition used in the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill 1976 and, secondly, that a ‘local governing body ‘ is defined in clause 3 to be a local governing body established by or under a law of a State, other than a body the sole or principal function of which is to provide a particular service, such as the supply of electricity or water. This definition is consistent with the definition used by the Commonwealth Grants Commission under the previous arrangements which applied to the distribution of general purpose assistance to local government.

I also take this opportunity to draw to the attention of the Senate the improvements in the status and financial standing of local government which have taken place since this Government came to office. I have already outlined the provisions which will apply under the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill 1976, which is now before the Senate. As mentioned previously, under this scheme local government will receive in 1976-77 an increase of 75 per cent over the level of general purpose assistance provided in 1975-76. Furthermore, the assistance to be provided to local government under these new arrangements will be known in advance, which will assist local authorities with forward budgeting, and it will be untied, which will allow local government authorities to allocate resources in accordance with their own assessment of priorities. The inclusion of local government in the new tax sharing scheme accords it the status of a genuine partner in our Federal system. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 1740

AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

This Bill is to amend the Air Navigation (Charges) Act which imposes charges on aircraft for the use of aerodromes, airway facilities, meteorological, and search and rescue services, which are provided, operated and maintained by the Commonwealth. The main purpose of the Bill is to increase the rates of charges by 15 per cent ‘across the board’ with effect from 1 December 1976. This increase, which will apply to all operators, both domestic and international, will ensure that the current level of cost recovery of services provided by the Government to the air transport industry is maintained and progressively improved.

In the year 1975-76, the cost of providing air transport facilities exceeded the revenue received from the users of those facilities by over $70m, with a cost recovery level of only 60 per cent. The Government has been concerned at the level of costs involved in providing facilities and services but is seeking to keep any increases in charges within economically acceptable levels. The increase of 1 5 per cent provided for in the Bill is expected to increase revenue by about $4m in 1 976-77 or $8m in a full year.

The Bill also provides for the introduction of a revised scale of charges for scheduled international flights arriving in, or departing from, Australia. The Government is concerned to see these charges proportioned more directly to the services provided by the Commonwealth. The change will adopt a charging principle endorsed by International Civil Aviation Organisation in that the costs incurred by the Commonwealth in the provision and maintenance of airway facilities, as distinct from airport facilities, will be recovered in proportion to the distance flown.

I want to make it clear that the revised scale, in itself, is not designed to increase total revenue from international flights. The scale sets a lower charge for shorter flights in Australia’s area of responsibility, while longer flights will attract a higher charge than under the current arrangements. The impact upon each international airline will therefore depend on its mix of flights to Australia. For instance, those airlines who predominantly fly across the Australian continent with flights from Melbourne and Sydney direct to South-East Asia and Europe, will be required to pay higher charges than those who operate predominantly from the Australian eastern seaboard to destinations across the Tasman and the Pacific. The proposed adjustments to the scale will have the effect of placing the charges for international air services on a more equitable basis.

I must point out that before setting the revised scale of charges, discussions were held between the International Air Transport AssociationIATA and the Department of Transport. On 5 August, the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) discussed the matter with a visiting IATA group of some 11 representatives, together with a representative of the non-IATA airlines serving Australia. At the meeting, he indicated that if IATA could itself propose an alternative scheme to the one put forward in this Bill and if all the airlines concerned were in agreement he would put their proposition to the Government. The Minister has recently received advice that the international airlines are unable to reach agreement on an alternative charging scheme and, under these circumstances, the Government is implementing the scale of charges originally proposed.

Honourable senators will be aware, of course, that the air navigation charges scheme is kept under constant review. If it is found that there is a need for further modification to the proposed scale of charges for international flights, or in respect of any other provision of the Act, appropriate amendments will be introduced by the Government at the appropriate time. The Bill also contains several procedural amendments which are designed to update and facilitate the administration of the air navigation charges scheme. These include a provision for an interest charge of 10 per cent per annum on overdue accounts which is designed to encourage the prompt payment of charges by those aircraft owners who are slow in meeting their financial commitments. The interest charge will only be imposed when the payment becomes 45 days overdue. The Bill changes the existing provisions relating to the departmental adjustments of charges in cases where a change in the ownership of an aircraft occurs. It will now be left to the seller and the purchaser of an aircraft to arrange an adjustment between themselves for any prepaid charges. This is similar to the procedures adopted by State governments in levying motor vehicle registration fees. These and other more minor amendments contained in the Bill will lead to a reduction of the administrative work load within the Department of Transport and will contribute to a more equitable and efficient operation of the charging system. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 1741

NITROGENOUS FERTILIZERS SUBSIDY AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I move:

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

Senator Keeffe:

– Because of the tremendous importance of this Bill, leave is not granted.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator DURACK:

-The purpose of the Bill now before the Senate is to extend the operation of the nitrogenous fertilizers subsidy scheme for a further year until 31 December 1977, but at a rate of subsidy reduced from $78.74 per tonne of nitrogen content to $60 per tonne of such content. Honourable senators will recall that in the context of presenting on 17 August 1976 the Budget Papers and outlining to the Senate the Budget proposals the Honourable the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) stated that the Government had considered the report of the Industries Assistance Commission which recommended the phasing out of the subsidy over 3 years and had agreed in principle that the subsidy should be phased out. As a first step in this direction the Bill proposes that from 1 January 1977 to 31 December 1977 subsidy will be payable at the reduced rate I have mentioned in respect of nitrogenous fertilizers of local production which are sold for use in Australia as fertilizer and also in respect of imported nitrogenous fertilizers which, during that calendar year, are either so used by the importer or are sold by the importer for such use in Australia. The level of subsidy to apply after 31 December 1977 will be considered by the Government in the light of economic circumstances prevailing nearer to that time. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 1742

QUESTION

BROADCASTING SYSTEM

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-I seek leave to make a statement in relation to the statement by Senator Carrick, the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, a few minutes ago.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator BUTTON:

-Today the Government tabled the report of the Green Committee on Australian broadcasting. The Minister has also made a statement in this House which purports to be conclusions of the Government reached as a result of that inquiry. A statement was made last Thursday in the House of Representatives. There are one or two matters to which I want to draw the attention of the Senate at this stage although I hope that in the spirit of the statement itself the Senator will have a full opportunity to debate it at a later stage. Some extraordinary things have emerged from the statement by the Minister. When the inquiry into broadcasting and television in Australia was appointed in April of this year it was asked to report in a specified time and the inquiry was left in the hands of officers of the Postal and Telecommunications Department. That, in itself, was an extraordinary and unique situation. For example, Lord Annan in Britain has been given 2 years to inquire into and report on a broadcasting system which is infinitely less complex than the broadcasting system in Australia. One of the most bizarre results of a departmental inquiry into broadcasting and television is that the inquirer not only proposes but also disposes.

The inquiry recommended in its report the disposal of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and takes upon itself the powers and functions which were previously vested in the Broadcasting Control Board to a very large extent. The Department which conducted the inquiry into broadcasting and television recommended the establishment of a broadcasting council to advise on broadcasting policy on which the Department will have 2 representatives. During the time of the Labor Government a lot of criticisms were made of the Department of the Media. Methinks that the present Government doth protest too much on this whole issue because we have been continually told by Ministers of the Government throughout this year that our major concern is to get broadcasting out of politics and politics out of broadcasting. If ever there was a result of an inquiry or conclusions such as those which appear to emerge in the somewhat garbled fashion in which they were stated by the Minister, which put politics right into broadcasting, the Government could not have worked harder at producing such a result than it did on this present inquiry and its consequences. Some of the specific conclusions in the statement by the Minister indicate that it is quite wrong in principle in terms of governmental practice that a body should be established to investigate a situation in which it has a particular vested interest in respect of the accretion of power, the enlargement of its own activities and so on.

There has been a constant clamour in the community throughout this year for a public inquiry into broadcasting. There has been a constant clamour for more freedom of information and more public debate about the broadcasting situation in this country. The Minister said in his statement that the question of self-regulation will be decided- that is for the commercial broadcasting industry- only after full public discussion and debate. When the Minister announced this inquiry in April this year it was called a public inquiry. I suppose it can be said to be public in the sense that any member of the public could write to the inquiry and put his views. That does not make it a public inquiry in any sense. In the Green report which is a substantial document there is not one section dealing with evidence before the inquiry because no evidence was given before the inquiry. There were 600 submissions from all sort of individuals. But anybody can write to anybody else. That is our right. That does not make a situation public.

Senator Wright:

– It is our right so long as the postal union will allow it to get through.

Senator BUTTON:

– That is correct. The postal union to which the honourable senator refers comes within the province of the same Department. After all the trouble Senator Wright and his colleagues took to win government they are now in government. They are responsible for running this country with the postal union and all the rest of the unions thrown in. That is an unfortunate and unpalatable fact which they must face. But the fact is that this was, in no sense, a public inquiry. There were no public hearings. There were, of course, a few private discussions with members of the Federation of Australian Commercial Broadcasters, the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations and officers of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. That does not make it a public inquiry. One fact which emerges from the Green report is that very little attention was paid to the interests of the consumers of radio and television. Very little interest was paid to their articulated wishes for an open, frank and public discussion on the situation of broadcasting in Australia. There is still very little intent on behalf of the Government to deal with the situation in that way. The sickening thing is the series of pious statements that have emanated from Government Ministers about their concern for a frank discussion of broadcasting in Australia, about their concern to preserve the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and so on. These statements have been made on a number of occasions and were made again by Senator Carrick tonight.

The tragic fact, of course, that we have to face up to is that the conservative political parties in this country construe bias as being something which is not totally favourable to them. Over the last 12 months there has been a series of quite significant and hysterical attacks on the Australian Broadcasting Commission. This is a subject with which I want to deal very briefly, but it is a very important one. Senator Withers, the Leader of the Government in this chamber, has made some vitriolic attacks on the Australian Broadcasting Commission and its integrity. The Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) has made similar attacks in other places. The unpalatable fact for the Government Parties, in respect of which they now seek retribution against the Australian Broadcasting Commission, is that in the 1975 election campaign it was only Australian Broadcasting Commission interviewers who asked the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) questions which should have been asked by any intelligent political interviewer anywhere in the world. They asked questions such as this: What are your policies, Mr Fraser? What is the situation going to be as a result of these policies in 12 months time?’ They asked questions to which every Australian was entitled to know the answer. It was because people such as Richard Carleton asked those questions that the Commission became the subject of quite vitriolic attack by Ministers in this Government. I do not say that all Ministers in this Government are like that and I do not say that all members of the Government Parties are like that. Many of them appreciate the great service which the Australian Broadcasting Commission has given this community and the principles which underlie the operation of a free and independent public radio service. But there has been that sort of background.

This statement, as it relates to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, really is an extraordinary document. One begins to wonder whether the whole Green inquiry, as it was called, was nothing more than a farce to get the Minister off the hook in a debate in which he was involved in April 1976. What emerges quite clearly- I think Senator Carrick will have heard about this today- is that neither the commercial radio section, the commercial television section, the Australian Broadcasting Commission nor the consumers of broadcasting services in this country are happy about what has happened in the last few days. They are not happy about it because this Government, in typical form as revealed in the last few months, commissions inquiries to look into various things such as broadcasting. It makes up its own mind before the reports of such inquiries are published, announces its decision and then a few days later gives us the benefit of the reports. It is to the decision of the Government as revealed in the statement that I want to direct some comments. First of all, the Minister has told us that the Government has been engaged in major initiatives concerning the administration of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I do not know what that means, because there is nothing major about it. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board has been abolished and its functions are to be given to another body. There is nothing particularly significant about that, one would think. We are told that a new structure is to be set up and industry participation is to be encouraged. There is nothing particularly revolutionary about that. Licensing is to be made the responsibility of a new statutory authority. That, of course, was a function of the old Broadcasting Control Board. We do not regret that it is to be put into the hands of a new statutory authority. We would like to understand a little more clearly what it is all about and what is in the Government’s mind. The statement certainly does not reveal that.

The statement says that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is to be subject to regular inquiry every 7 years. We do not object to that as a matter of principle. The statement is quite unclear as to who is to conduct that inquiry. Is it to be conducted by the tribunal which is to be established or is it to be an independent public inquiry as it would be in any other democracy comparable to this? Which is it to be? The statement is quite unclear. One suspects that just as this Government has made a mess of ethnic radio, which is of great concern to many people who are consumers of ethnic radio, a shocking mess has been made of this inquiry into broadcasting and the conclusions which have been drawn from it We are told that the Government proposes to set up a new broadcasting council to advise the Government on broadcasting matters. It is very unclear what the powers of that council are to be. We are told that it will be representative of the various sectors of the industry. We are told that it will have an independent chairman, but in the Minister’s statement there is nothing specific about any of those matters.

We are told that the first inquiry will concern self-regulation of Australian broadcasting. Selfregulation, it is said, will be decided only after public debate. Why are we to have public debate about self-regulation in the commercial sector of the broadcasting industry when no public debate has been allowed about the national broadcasting service, the Australian Broadcasting Commission? Why is there this sudden concession to the principle of public debate in relation to selfregulation of the commercial sector? That seems an extraordinary inconsistency which is followed by further ones later in the statement.

Senator Wright:

– That was a piece of synthetic -

Senator BUTTON:

-I am talking about broadcasting. If Senator Wright did not mumble I could answer what he says. The Minister said that broadcasting planning would be undertaken by his Department and that he would appoint a broadcasting council made up of certain interests. For the first time in the history of this country we are told that a department of government, not an independent authority, is to be responsible for broadcasting planning. Senator Wright, who interjects here tonight and who has great enthusiasm for the great democratic traditions which we have inherited from Britain and elsewhere, no doubt will applaud that as a unique development; but it is the first time in the history of this country that broadcasting planning has been put directly in the hands of a department. The Minister went on to say:

At the same time, the independence and integrity of the Australian Broadcasting Commission will be maintained.

By way of explanation of that, the Minister says that there will be a public inquiry every few years. It is not clear who is to conduct that public inquiry. He then goes on to say that the commissioners, who will be nine in number, will be representative of each of the 6 States and at least two of the nine will be women. We can only infer from that that it is the intention of the Government to restructure the Australian Broadcasting Commission immediately in a way which is suitable to the Government. There is no reason, first of all, for the criterion of having a commissioner from each State. After all, we are not dealing with a piggy bank. We are dealing with a national broadcasting service, and what we should be seeking is the best available talent to serve on the Commission of that broadcasting service. If new federalism is so rampant in the mind of the Government as to cause the Government to regard it as necessary that there be a representative of each State on the Australian Broadcasting Commission, that is an extraordinary thing.

The other extraordinary thing is this nice token gesture of having 2 women on the Commission. It is not necessary to write that into the legislation. We could have 6 women on the Australian Broadcasting Commission now. Those of my colleagues who are more expert in these matters than I am would be able to tell the Senate that that form of tokenism is regarded as reprehensible in some circles where it is believed that the same result can be achieved without written positive discrimination in favour of women.

Senator Lajovic:

– Like trade unions?

Senator BUTTON:

-Let us stop mumbling about trade unions for a while. The point is that at least three of the present commissioners come up for replacement next year anyway. The significant part of the statement is the failure of the Government to say that a representative of the staff of the Australian Broadcasting Commission will be a commissioner. That seems to me to be quite inconsistent with numerous statements made by the Government on the question of representation of employees on government bodies and especially on governing bodies of statutory corporations. It is a quite extraordinary departure from that principle and a quite reprehensible omission. It is to be hoped that the Government will reconsider that matter.

In the same statement the Minister went on to talk about the importance of staff relations in the national broadcasting service, the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Really there has not been very much of a problem with staff relations in the Australian Broadcasting Commission until this year when the Government made very savage cuts in its budget and when it appointed Sir Henry Bland, that master of industrial relations, to the chairmanship of the ABC. From then on it has been a continual, debilitating and embarrassing squabble. As I understand it, good staff relations involve co-operation and each side knowing where they are going, a community of purpose and a number of things of that kind which are totally absent from the ABC at the moment. This situation will become worse if the Government persists with its apparent course of removing the staff-elected commissioner from the ABC. The major concern about this question of the apparent threat to the position of the present commissioners was very well expressed as long ago as 1958. Senator Wright will remember this.

Senator Wright:

– If it is important, I will, and back to 1 948 or 1 928 if it is important. Age is an advantage.

Senator BUTTON:

– If I tell the honourable senator what it is all about he can tell me whether it is important and he can tell his colleague whether it is important. In 1960 a Liberal Government amended the predecessor to section 32 of the Broadcasting and Television Act for 2 stated purposes. The first was to give continuity of service to members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the second was to ensure the integrity of the ABC. That amendment of 1960 flowed directly from suggestions made by the honourable member for Mackellar, Mr Wentworth, in a statement in the House to which I wanted to refer the Senate. Senator Wright can tell me and tell Mr Wentworth whether it is important. What Mr Wentworth said was that the section should be amended so that there should be a provision to the following effect:

A member shall hold office subject to capacity and good behaviour.

He went on to say:

At first glance, that seems to be the same as the provision that I have suggested should be excised, but in point of fact it is not, because the provision I have suggested would give right of appeal to the court … no one wants to retain in office a member who has misbehaved, but what one wants to ensure is that no member of the board shall be dismissed out of hand by a corrupt socialist government for alleged misbehaviour when he has not misbehaved. What we want to ensure is that anyone who is dismissed has an effective right of appeal to the court and the possibility of reinstatement.

The view of the Liberal Party in 1958 and 1960 was that section 32 of the Act should protect the commissioners and the integrity of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I do not hear from Senator Wright whether he regards that as important, but the Opposition regards it as important in terms of continuity of the members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

A number of other matters in the Minister’s statement are far from clear, as are a number of other matters to which he referred as being matters which are being given further consideration. I totally commend to the Government the concept of giving further consideration to what it is doing or seems to be doing in relation to the situation of broadcasting and television in Australia. One suspects that all this tale full of sound and fury really signifies nothing except perhaps an expression of bias and an expression of retribution against certain people in the Australian Broadcasting Commission and a desire, contrary to every expressed statement of the Government, to involve the Government in broadcasting and television in Australia in a very real way for the first time in the history of this country. It seems to me to be a most dangerous precedent. I speak not as a member of the Opposition but as an Australian citizen when I say that it seems to me to be a most dangerous precedent and one which should be examined closely by thoughtful members of the Government parties. I hope that that will be done and I hope that the question of further consideration, which is referred to in the Minister’s statement, will be pursued with great vigour by members of the Government parties.

Probably what we all want to see in this country is the best possible service that can be provided for consumers of broadcasting. That can be done by effective competition. The Opposition is not averse to that notion. It can be done by constant encouragement and better standards. It cannot be done by cosmetic changes to the structure of broadcasting and by the interference of a government department. It is those matters which we condemn. Right from the beginning we see this inquiry as being positively misconceived, as a smokescreen, as an inquiry conducted by the wrong body, in haste and in desperation. We believe that the results have been seen in the statement made by Senator Carrick tonight. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1976-77 In Committee

Consideration resumed from 4 November.

Department of Social Security

Proposed expenditure, $2 1 5,404,000.

Department of Health

Proposed expenditure, $1,803,485,000. Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Proposed expenditure, $32,975,000.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Proposed expenditure, $8 1 ,529,000.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) The Committee is dealing as a whole with the votes contained in Group D in the circulated statement.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– In this debate on Thursday night I was referring to division 334, Northern Territory Hospitals, and to subdivision 1- Salaries and Payments in the nature of Salary. I do not want to make a second reading speech on this matter but I insist that the matter of the establishment of the Department of Health in the Northern Territory be looked at with some urgency. I indicated that the present staff ceiling of the Department is 2299 and that the actual number of people employed is 2274. 1 indicated that I felt that the authority was aware of its responsibility but perhaps not aware of the demands on the Department of Health now and in the future. Perhaps it is out of touch. I indicated the new facilities throughout the Northern Territory, at Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin. One that I did not mention was Papunya.

There has been much publicity in the Press about the health of the Aboriginal people. Professor Hollows is presently in the Northern Territory carrying out a survey on the health of the Aboriginal people, particularly of the children, in relation to trachoma and other conditions of the eyes, ears, nose and chest. As I have said before, the state of health of the Aboriginal people, particularly of the children, is alarming. Evidently this is due to contact with Europeans and did not occur before. Nevertheless, there is a tremendous demand on the Northern Territory Health Department and I doubt whether it is geared to accept its responsibilities and carry out its duty to bring about better health.

In the last week or two I received an answer to question on notice No. 1075 which I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I asked about rural health centres in the Northern Territory, how many were being constructed, how many were in the planning stages, where the centres were situated, whether there were any staffing problems, what Aboriginal staff were being employed, whether any Aborigines were being trained and so on. The answer indicated that in the Northern Territory now there are 35 localities with health centres, either departmental or subsidised missions. These health centres are scattered over some 520 000 square miles. How can some 2000-odd people who have responsibilities throughout the Health Department and hospitals really be sufficient to handle all these health centres in extremely isolated areas? These 35 localities can be in places such as Alyangula, Amoonguna, Angurugu, Areyonga, Ayers Rock, Bamyili, Borroloola, Croker Island and elsewhere throughout the Northern Territory. In addition there are 1 8 other health centres on pastoral properties.

Senator Keeffe:

– I have been everywhere.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– Yes, and I hope that the Health Department servicing the Northern Territory can be everywhere too, but I have my doubts. There are 1 8 health centres on pastoral leases. Additional or replacement health centre facilities are being constructed at 9 localitiesDaly River, Docker River, Hooker Creek, Oenpelli and so on. One can see that the scope of the demand for health services in the Northern Territory is immense and it is impossible for the Health Department to service these various facilities in the Northern Territory while endeavouring to live within it establishment. I point out to those authorities and the Health Department that in answer to a question last week in which I was being rather critical of across the board cuts in the Public Service, Senator Webster indicated that any department or Minister who had reason to believe that within that department there was lack of efficiency through lack of numbers had every right to go to the Public Service Board or to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to ensure that within the establishment of that department there were sufficient people to carry out the duties of the department in an efficient manner.

I make one further point before I sit down. While speaking on the establishment of health centres in the Northern Territory, it concerns me to see that there are 107 Aboriginal staff employed in departmental rural health centres and 68 employed in health centres. The answer to my question on notice states that of the 107 staff, 77 are formally enrolled in training programs. The point I want to make, and I believe it is legitimate, is that while there are 107 Aboriginal staff employed in the Northern Territorycertainly they do a very good job- on missions and settlements, if they resign, leave or are sick they are not replaced because of the across the board cuts. Under the regulations now operating any person who goes on leave, becomes sick or for any reason leaves his position is not replaced. I suggest that whilst we are trying to find employment for Aborigines in the Northern Territory, encourage them and assist them in education and health, gradually their numbers in the Northern Territory are dwindling and the across the board cuts in the Northern Territory are a washout, are not working and are not good for the health of the Northern Territory community.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-That is the first friendly statement that the honourable senator on the other side from the Northern Territory has made about Aborigines since he has been here and for the first time I support him. That will probably shock him too. The statements which have just been made by Senator Kilgariff are factual. For months I have been trying to find out about the supplementary program ranging up to $200,000 for Aboriginal children. I have asked question after question in this chamber but there is a great veil of secrecy. This Government is living in secrecy. It has no information about anything at any time. I was promised this information but have not been able to get it so far. I specifically refer to division 813 dealing with the Aboriginal Advancement Program under the heading ‘Payments to or for the States’. In the financial year 1975-76 there was an appropriation of $40.79m and expenditure of $39,003,968. For the current financial year this has been cut back, in round figures, by $10m. That is a very large sum of money. This bankrupt Government cannot find that amount of money for this area of Aboriginal affairs.

Senator Wright:

– You do not know what it means.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Of course the Government is bankrupt. My friend from Queensland came down to see the Government and said on his return that there was nothing wrong with the Fraser Government except that it is bankrupt and cannot run its own affairs.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Senator Keeffe, you are speaking to the wrong Bill.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am not on the wrong Bill. This is the debate which was adjourned the other night.

The CHAIRMAN:

-You are speaking on health.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am speaking on Aboriginal Affairs.

The CHAIRMAN:

-You are dealing with division 813, which is in Appropriation Bill (No. 2). However, you may continue.

Senator KEEFFE:

-We discussed these things in the Estimates Committees. I happened to be 6 minutes and 30 seconds, to be precise, late back from dinner one night and in that time the Committee had passed an appropriation of $29.82m. That is the fastest spending I have seen in my life. I want to know where this money under the heading ‘Payments to or for the States’ went to. I would like to know how much has been allocated to Western Australia and under what headings and how much has been allocated to each of the States, particularly Queensland, and under what headings.

In north Queensland there is a place known as the Gorge. It is a tiny Aboriginal settlement not far from Mossman where, comparatively speaking, a large number of Aborigines live. There is no electricity and the houses are in a very dilapidated condition. In the days of the Labor Government an appropriation was made to enable these people to live in better class homes but the Queensland department dug in its toes. There are only 60 acres on the reserve and this tribe was transported to the reserve from the Daintree River tribal lands a long time ago back in the middle 1930s. The old people who came into the Gorge area died very rapidly of hookworm. It is a hookworm infested area. There are 60 acres of reserve in this very picturesque area about 2 miles from Mossman. Negotiations were entered into between the Australian Government and the Queensland Government to purchase a small area of land outside the reserve so that proper homes could be built for these people, but the Queensland department, with its very good eye for real estate, decided to buy it in advance. I want to know where that money has gone, who is holding it and what is happening to it. I have written to Mr Viner and have endeavoured to get information but have not been able to do so other than to be told that he is looking into it. Of all the Ministers in this Parliament Mr Viner is becoming the most expert; he is always looking into something. He probably would come second only to the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) in looking into things. We never seem to get the real, solid information that we require.

There is one quite substantial home on the reserve. The white people who live in it are ashamed of the fact that they live in it with electricity, refrigeration, fans and so on. The people who are forced to live in these huts know that money has been made available to build proper homes for them and that they are not able to get these homes. If land rights were ever required the onus would be on this Government to take on the Queensland Government and at least to claim this little reserve of 60 acres. The points made by Senator Kilgariff concerning Aboriginal health in the Northern Territory are dead right, and I hope that he adopts the same attitude when the land rights legislation comes into this place.

Senator Kilgariff:

– I will try to knock it into shape.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I thank the honourable senator very much. If he comes in on the same basis when the land rights legislation is before us, this will be a somewhat happier Parliament. The situation in the Northern Territory is becoming drastic. Prior to the Labor Government taking office the death rate among Aboriginal infants under one year of age was about 140 to 150 per thousand live births. After 3 years of somewhat better government that number was reduced to 50.1, which was still a disgraceful figure. If this Government is allowed to proceed with its cutbacks in the fields of employment, housing, education and medical services, I forecast now that by this time next year the death rate amount Aboriginal children under one year of age will be at least 100 per thousand live births. It is not good enough. I believe that there is a tremendous responsibility on the Australian community to ensure that people, regardless of race, colour or creed, have the same standard of living wherever they reside in Australia.

I want to know where this sum of $29m is to be spent, and I want the information in detail; otherwise I am prepared to vote against this appropriation. We have seen things go through this chamber previously and Ministers and departments have said: ‘We will get you the information’. Recently I received a letter about the miniBudget which went through this chamber last May. Then the letter did not give the information that I required. What recourse do I have? How can I kick back? There is a tendency in the Treasury and other places to hide things under the carpet, and it is just not good enough. I am not prepared to vote for this appropriation until such time as I get the information.

Senator Wright:

- Mr Chairman -

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Senator Wright, I will call the Minister.

Senator Wright:

-I thought that it would be more convenient to the Minister if I were to speak first.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– Very well.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Minister yields to you, Senator Wright. I call Senator Wright.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I do not know whether anybody has any purpose in regulating the order of speaking, but I try to follow a pattern that is convenient to the Committee and, in particular, to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) who so graciously is in charge of the business before the Committee. So that she will be able to provide information, if there is information which will justify a response, I direct her attention to paragraph 3.1.2 of the Auditor-General’s report. Some honourable senators are inclined to think that the AuditorGeneral’s report is beneath notice. I choose to refer to about 2 per cent of its total content. I wonder whether the Ministers in totality refer to the report even to that degree.

I remind the Minister that during the infamous days of the Labor Government one of the first essays into administration was in the field of Aboriginal affairs. It concerned some crocodile and turtle farms in Torres Strait. Honourable senators will recall that such was the mess that the Auditor-General saw fit to bring in a report specially on that subject in March 1974. It was quite apparent that there had been wholesale maladministration, unauthorised expenditure of money and wasteful expenditure of money, and the matter was never cleared up. I am alarmed to think that we would have a government that would receive with impassivity a report by the Auditor-General pointing out that he had been asking for inquiries under the heading of turtle and crocodile projects and that the Secretary of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs had advised him as follows:

Due to the history of inconclusive information . . together with the increasing delays in receiving information it is considered pointless in pursuing this matter any further. Therefore you are advised that no further investigation into this project will be conducted . . .

The Auditor-General stated:

The decision by the Department not to expend further resources on an investigation which appears unlikely to achieve worthwhile results has been noted.

When a government wants taxation from my people but is not prepared to bring to book any criminal or civil liability for such wasteful expenditure, it should consider the matter again. Last week the question of legal aid services came in for comment from about 4 honourable senators, and all the comment was adverse. On page 145 the Auditor-General’s report states:

The detailed guidelines on the provision of legal aid services, referred to in earlier Reports, have not yet been issued.

The comment in the report which sends the Senate, the Parliament and the Ministry to sleep is this:

The Department advises the draft guidelines are being reviewed.

Any Minister who knows that guidelines have not been issued for a month and who does not sack the head of his department who pretends to run the department without guidelines is not responsible.

On the same page the report refers to the question of the hire and construction of hovercraft. I referred to this question in my speech during the second reading debate, but I wish to bring out a few particular points now. The first is this quotation from the Auditor-General ‘s report:

Studies by the Department of the operations of the hovercraft have established that an air cushion vehicle is neither the most suitable nor the most economical means of transport in the Torres Strait area. Departmental records show $264,950 as expended on hire and operational costs.

I want to know, firstly, whether that expenditure has been examined and whether there is any corruption in it, as I suspect there is; secondly, whether there is any breach of Treasury regulations or proper authorisation in it, as I expect there is wholesale; and, thirdly, who in the Department continued that thoroughly wasteful expenditure? Then there are other points. Notwithstanding that conclusion as to the unsuitability of an air cushion vehicle for that area, the Department entered into an agreement for the construction of such a vehicle. That was done on a consultancy basis. Who are the consultants? What report did they give? Has the Minister examined the question whether there was negligence in giving a report? If so, is the country to recover damages, because usually one employs consultants to prevent one from launching into wasteful expenditure. An amount of $28,065 has been paid to these consultants. The processes of law should indicate that that amount at least should be repaid if there is negligence, and also that there should be recovery of the expenditure incurred on the faith of a negligent report. But responsibility does not end there. The Department, having satisfied itself as to the unsuitability of the air cushion vehicle, has some responsibility as to whether it enters into a contract for construction. So abysmal was the contract that there has now been total cancellation of the construction contract involving $1 15,699, including $ 18,000-odd compensation for the termination of the contract. What officer within the Department is being asked to pay back to the Treasury his share of the taxpayers’ money paid out on such an absolutely absurd and unjustified proposal?

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– In the debate last Thursday I spoke about the provision of legal aid services for Aborigines. I said I wanted to make some more remarks about the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee under the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Senator Wright has entered into this debate and he relies on the report of the Auditor-General without knowing the facts. I feel that I am taking over ministerial responsibility by trying to show that Senator Wright simply does not know what he is talking about. Last week there was a debate in this place on turtle farming when 2 honourable senators on this side seemed to be in disagreement about the value of turtle farming. I do not know where Rip Van Winkle was on that occasion but he has now awakened to the fact there is something on turtle farming in the Auditor-General’s report for last year which explains that information could not be disclosed in relation to payment by the Department to the Australian National University of a sum of money approved by Parliament for research work.

Senator Jessop:

– Who is Rip Van Winkle?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The senator has just woken up to something that was explained in this place last week. The Department thought in all sincerity that, having allocated the money for research work, it was up to the people administering the research funds to find out where the money was being spent and whether it was spent properly. The money having been paid out for research work, that was the end of it so far as bookeeping for the Department was concerned. It was only when last year’s report of the Auditor-General said that it was not sufficient for audit purposes and that there had to be a check-up on all that went before it that the Department endeavoured to seek from the University information on this question. As honourable senators heard, that expensive bird- Dr Bustard- had flown. He had gone back to Scotland, I believe. Although it was not impossible to find out the details, the expense that would be involved in getting the information would be greater than the amount of money that had originally been involved in the whole transaction. That saving reduced the figure by many thousands of dollars. The secretary to the Department wrote back to the Auditor-General stating that it was not worth following up because of the expense that would be involved.

Senator Wright:

– What was the amount involved? Do you know?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The honourable senator will find it in the Auditor-General ‘s report of last year. I do not have the figure in my head. I never knew it. Possibly the Minister can state the amount. Moving on to the question of legal aid for Aborigines, I spoke on this last week and I admitted that I had not heard what Senator Baume had to say on this subject. I put up some defence for someone who I thought would be named and who had been named. That was Paul Coe in Sydney, who, whatever his shortcomings, has an earnest desire to do something for his people. I do not want to denigrate him here, despite the many faults he may have and the many mistakes he has made. I do not dispute anything that Senator Baume said last week. The Sydney office of the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service has always been a problem. Firstly, there was no proper auditing. There was no keeping of accounts until such time as we insisted on this and we made the office employ an accountant for the purpose of keeping accounts. But of all the Legal Aid offices, Senator Baume brought up the Sydney office only as an example which he said was discrediting the whole Service which in his opinion was doing a good job throughout Australia. Although the Minister responsible has not yet overcome the problems at the Sydney office, that office nevertheless is providing a great service to the Aboriginal people in Sydney who require legal aid when appearing before the courts.

Senator Baume:

– And that is not denied, senator.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-That is not denied. So we are all in agreement on that. There are some difficulties to be overcome at the Sydney office and these difficulties will be overcome. The difficulties may be the birth pains that go with the provision of a new service, but honourable senators must not take away the credit due to Paul Coe who initiated the formation of the Sydney office when there was no Government subsidy. There is always this sort of problem. The Whitlam Government promised that no Aboriginal would have to go before the court without counsel, whatever the cost. Because the Legal Aid Service offices we set up could not supply counsel for all Aborigines appearing before the courts, rather than employ additional lawyers full time, if they were available, and keeping them on the staff to be employed only at some time or other, there was always the problem that the Department could never budget for the amount required to pay for counsel briefed outside the Legal Aid Service. The Legal Aid Service was authorised to brief counsel when the need arose. Although it had a limited budget for this the occasion frequently arose when there would be a need to go outside the budget because an Aboriginal who was a defendant in court needed legal aid at a time when the appropriation had been expended. In the provision of all legal aid services I think there is an accumulation of accounts from outside solicitors.

I raised last week the desirability of employing outside legal services in cases which in counsel’s opinion would have no hope of succeeding but in which the services are provided for the purpose of providing salaries for outside lawyers rather than out of any consideration for the Aboriginal. The audit guidelines that the Auditor-General said should be drawn up cannot be accepted as a criticism of the Head of the Department. Surely if guidelines are to be drawn up for a service the Minister must be responsible. If after 12 months of Fraser Government the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Viner, has not drawn up guidelines for the administration of the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service his failure to do so should be condemned. The Auditor-General finds it necessary to condemn it. Senator Wright has gone out of his way to condemn his Minister to a degree that I would not be prepared to do.

I turn to the question of hovercraft. With my approval and my sanction the hovercraft was commissioned from a British firm for trials. The firm consulted us for the purpose of seeing whether it would be a suitable means of transprt in Torres Strait, which is a very difficult area, particularly so far as medical cases are concerned when it is necessary to rush people from the islands which have no landing strips and no means of transport to the mainland. Having had a hovercraft on hire from a British firm for trial, this not being a permanent arrangement, and being satisfied that such a craft was the best means of transport from the Torres Strait we arranged with Taylorcraft at Parafield in South Australia to build a hovercraft for the Torres Strait service. After the trial of the English hovercraft had ended all those associated with it commended it.

I have received well-informed advice from within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs that the Department is not of the opinion that the hovercraft or air-cushioned craft is not the solution for emergency transport from the Torres Strait islands but the contract with Taylor Brothers in South Australia had to be terminated and hovercraft had to cease to be the means of conveyance from Torres Strait islands, firstly, because inflation had increased the contract price and, secondly, because of the curtailment of expenditure on Aboriginal affairs by this Government this year which meant that the Department could not proceed with the project. That is the true reason why there has been a cancellation of the project to provide hovercraft services from the Torres Strait islands. That is the reason why that superior means of transport for that area will not be availed of for the present.

While Senator Wright is concerned for the taxpayers who have to pay tax he has a greater concern for taxpayers who have to pay tax for something to be provided for Aboriginals, which is money not well spent, than he has for taxpayers who have to pay tax for expenditure in the Northern Territory on reconstruction which he finds is not justified but which he is prepared to permit at present rather than embarrass his government on the question.

I turn to the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee, for which I fought for a long time. This Government was in doubt about its effectiveness and whether it was the best means of providing Aboriginal representation and advice to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. It set up a committee under Mr Hiatt for the purpose of seeing whether the Committee was the best form of communication between Aboriginals and the Department. I believe that it is now some weeks since Mr Hiatt presented his report to the Department. It has not seen the light of day publicly. No one is to know what is in it. Unlike the Hay report, the Opposition has not received a copy before its release. However, we know that Mr Hiatt favours the continuation of the Aboriginal Consultative Committee. Therefore there is no justification this year for depriving the Committee of funds so that it cannot meet. Last year the Committee had an expenditure of $68,610 for meeting expenses. This year the Government has made a provision of $20,000, which is insufficient to hold one meeting on a national basis, with fares and accommodation taken into account. Therefore this elected body, supported by the committee the Government established, is not permitted to meet in this 12 months because the Government has not made allowance for it.

The main criticism of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee is that some people are dissatisfied with the representation in various areas. Rather than have an election in the wet and to get a proper electoral system I extended the Committee’s period of operation from the 2 years for which it was appointed for a further 9 months. Members of the Committee were due to come up for election, I believe, in March of this year, but we find that there has been no provision to hold an election this year for the

National Aboriginal Consultative Committee. Therefore, those who are on the Committee, some of whom are unsatisfactory- if one accepts the expressed statements of those they represent -appear to be on the Committee on a permanent basis. The Department is making provision to pay their salaries and for their assistants but is not making provision to let them meet and to let them have an election. So it looks as though they have a permanent job as long as they can do it.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– I wish to take a few minutes of the Committee’s time to talk briefly on 2 aspects of unemployment in Aboriginal communities. I speak only briefly because the matter has been mentioned before but I rise because the situation certainly is no better but is getting worse. The first problem I mention is the problem of council workers employed by the village councilspeople who carry out the normal municipal functions in the Aboriginal communities. I have visited a number of these communities recently. I should like to give an example of one. The smaller communities are in trouble, not the larger ones. The example I wish to give is that of Ngukurr, which is on the Roper River. According to my information the money supplied by the Government will run out towards the end of November and from that time on 54 workers will receive unemployment benefit. I have reported this matter to the Director of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in the Northern Territory and perhaps something has been done. But the general principle remains the same- that the smaller communities are experiencing a lot of trouble. I bring this question to the attention of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle).

The larger communities, as I have mentioned, do not have the same trouble. Probably because they have more money they have more flexibility. It is also a fact of course that some of the larger communities have industry, which many of the smaller ones do not have. I think the Minister will be aware of the problem of unemployment benefits in an Aboriginal community. I think Senator Kilgariff has already introduced into this place the phrase ‘sit-down money’. This is what the unemployment benefit is regarded as. The problems of unemployment will be known to the Minister. Firstly the individual loses dignity and takes part in gambling and excessive drinking and so on. Of course then money is short and, as many people will know, it comes from the child endowment payments and from the age pensioners. When a large number of unemployed people are present within a community, that community disintegrates and lays itself open to that criticism which people are prepared so readily to give to Aboriginal communities.

Another aspect of general unemployment is the lack of opportunities for young people. On the settlement I mentioned, the chairman of the group told me that not one person under the age of 20 years was in employment. This is a shocking situation. I am pleased to see that a working party has been set up to look at the training of Aboriginal people. But this has been done before, and my complaint is that unfortunately once again this is putting the cart before the horse. There is little point in training Aboriginal people if there are no employment opportunities. I suggest very strongly here that the creation of employment opportunities is the obvious first step.

It has been quite clearly indicated to those of us who have been in Aboriginal communitiesmost honourable senators have- that Aboriginal people can learn trades and can learn them very quickly; but they must see the need for the training. They cannot see the point in training in isolation. Let us face it, why should they? There is no doubt that in the Northern Territory there has been a blueprint for training for Aboriginal people for many years. But I repeat that it is pointless implementing this blueprint unless there are employment opportunities. As we have mentioned before these in the main must be in the community, not away from the community. I do not think I need to go through the arguments for that again. The Department of Education has indicated that it can do its bit. Let us see the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of the Northern Territory do theirs.

I move to the second problem that I want to mention, and that is the problem of the Aboriginal public servant. I have spoken before- I notice again that Senator Kilgariff raised this matter tonight- about the inappropriateness of Public Service procedures in the Northern Territory. I do not need to go through the details; Senator Kilgariff has mentioned them for the Committee. I use as an example again the community to which I referred earlier. While I was visiting that community the head teacher indicated to me that there was a shortage of teaching assistants, those Aboriginal people who are so vital in the education program and who assist the teachers. As soon as I got back to Darwin I went to see the Director of Education who told me that there were 40 vacancies for teacher assistants but that the applications for those vacancies could not be processed through the Public Service.

What a ludicrous situation it is that out on the settlements we have a need for these people, the teachers are screaming out for the assistants, the assistants need the jobs to get the money, and yet the procedures have been set up in such a way that these people are prevented from being employed. I ask the Minister for Social Security to ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) to look at this Public Service procedure. Surely something can be done. The obvious thing to do is to give authority to the local Public Service inspector to approve of such appointments rather than the cases having to come to Canberra for consideration. There is growing up in the Northern Territory a general feeling that the procedures are a devious device to avoid spending money. Perhaps I am naive, but I cannot believe that that is so. The small amount of money that would be be saved would be saved at a great social cost.

So I ask the Minister to look at a couple of areas. Firstly I ask him to look at the employment situation in the Northern Territory to get a clear picture of just how critical it is. Then in the short term perhaps some money could be provided to the Aboriginal communities to help to keep them running. That money could be provided in the form of project money, of which the Minister will be aware. Certainly keeping a community running can be seen as a special project when we have the situation of 54 people from a small community such as that on the Roper River being out of work. The Minister has plenty of other opportunities such as those provided by the Regional Employment and Development scheme and other schemes to supply that money. In the longer term, surely we can develop industries among the Aboriginal communities so that there will be employment opportunities for the Aboriginal people. If we are going to have an investigation surely we should investigate that matter rather than the techniques of training.

I notice that some thought has been given to paying the unemployment benefit in a large sum to the councils on the communities. I would caution the Minister against doing that. It seems to me that it would create too many problems. Surely a direct grant would be a better way in which to handle the situation. However, I know that that matter is being investigated. As a special plea in this area I ask that special consideration be given to young people. No one under 20 years of age is employed from the small community to which I have referred. What point is there in having an education program if there are no employment opportunities at the end of that program? In the second area, I ask the Minister to look at the Public Service procedures and to consider the situation that exists in the Northern Territory. If we need a more unusual example of the problem of the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, perhaps I should refer to those Aborigines who move out of their jobs more frequently than others. Perhaps the first step towards overcoming the problems involved in that regard would be to give the local Public Service inspector power to approve the appointment of these people to positions. In conclusion, I support what my colleague, Senator Kilgariff, said about the health situation in the Northern Territory. It is good to see that the wonderful programs initiated by Doug Everingham are appreciated and will be continued.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I want to make a rather small contribution to the Committee’s consideration this evening of the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, particularly in the light of some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the Department in relation to the hire or leasing of a hovercraft to service the Torres Strait Island people. I will not go into the pros and cons of whether the Department was unwise in what it did in relation to that expenditure on behalf of the Torres Strait people. What I do feel is that, regardless of whether that expenditure may not have been wisely made by the Department, it highlights, in my opinion, the concern of the Department and the Director of that Department at the lack of transport facilities and means of communication available to the people of the Torres Strait Islands. That matter finds sympathy not only with me but also with members of the Senate Select Committee on Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders on which I served for some considerable time and which was looking into the environmental conditions of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. Some of those honourable senators who have served on that Committee are in the chamber tonight.

That Committee found that there is a great need and a very important need in the Torres Strait Islands for better surface transport facilities for the people of the Torres Strait Islands, as well as there being a very urgent and great need for better communication facilities for those people who live on those islands in the Torres Strait and who are isolated from the rest of Australia. Our Committee investigated these problems and brought down a report on them. I believe it is appropriate that I mention tonight some of the recommendations made by that Committee. I refer in particular to those on pages 1 1 to 1 3 of the Committee ‘s report.

We found that there was an urgent need in the Torres Strait Islands. We recommended that the inter-island surface transport network be upgraded to provide better direct movement of passengers and of adequate amounts of cargo between the islands. As a result of its investigations the Committee found- I found this also from making several trips to the Torres Strait Islands and by talking to the people up therethat there is one government boat that services the communities on a number of islands. I think it services 16 islands all told. Although the boat does go to all these islands, its visits are very infrequent. The accommodation on the boat is not adequate for the island people. While the accommodation for VIPs, such as the Director of Aboriginal Affairs, or the Premier, or the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who are travelling to the islands may be very adequate and comfortable, that is not so in the case of accommodation for the people who live on those islands. They have to sleep on the deck, They do not have proper accommodation. There is very little accommodation for perishable goods on this particular boat that travels to these island communities. So our Committee recommended that that transport network be upgraded.

Whilst we appreciate the Queensland Government’s position- it perhaps does not have the means to provide this accommodation- we believe that the Federal Government should make available a subsidy or the kind of finance which will provide that facility for a group of people who are proudly Australian citizens. That fact has been highlighted during the controversy of the change of our border with Papua New Guinea in the Torres Strait. They want to remain Australians. Unfortunately, because of certain circumstances that exist in that area, they are not being treated like other Australians because of the inadequate transport facility available to them and because of many other matters that the Committee looked at.

Some but not all of these islands have an airstrip, but they are not all weather airstrips. So our Committee recommended that the existing airstrips be improved to strips of all weather standard so that at least some of the islands will be serviced and so that the people who live on those islands will have the opportunity to leave, whether it be a case of wanting to go for a holiday, whether it be a case of need for urgent medical attention, or whether it be some other case. There are a number of recommendations in our report. The recommendations which deal with various aspects of improving conditions for the people on the Torres Strait Islands are numbered from 12 to 20. I thought that I should make some contribution tonight on behalf of the Torres Strait Island people. Although there has been some criticism of the Department’s expenditure of money on a hovercraft, I believe that it was done in good faith and shows the concern of the Director of the Department and of his departmental officers. Whilst we may feel inclined to criticise the expenditure, let us hope that in the future something more constructive will be done in relation to surface transport and communications for the people of the Torres Strait Islands.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Before I call Senator Keeffe I wish to ask those honourable senators who intend to speak to identify, before they begin, the particular item to which they will speak. I now call Senator Keeffe.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I want to speak to the appropriations to which I was speaking previously without picking up a particular line number. I do this on the basis that many of these things were referred to in considerable detail in the Estimates Committee.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The only point I wish to raise, without trying to impede you -

Senator KEEFFE:

-Without trying to be difficult, all right.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There are 2 Bills in the Senate at the present time, but only one of them is before the Committee. That is Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) 1 976-77. We are referring to division Nos 120 to 125 under the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. You were referring to another Bill, Senator Keeffe.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Thank you, Mr Chairman. I will confine myself to those divisions in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1976-77. This is the area which covers just about everything concerned with Aboriginal affairs. Only a number of minor points are raised in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1976-77 and I do not propose to return to those points. I want to refer to the racist statements made by my colleague on the other side of the chamber, Senator Wright. Senator Wright has been known not to take an interest in Aboriginal affairs except in the days of Labor governments.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Senator Keeffe, you must not disparage another senator.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Mr Chairman, if you will bear with me for half a minute I will apologise.

Senator Wright came into this chamber tonight to talk about the provision, in particular, of a hovercraft, and the legal service; he chased turtles and crocodiles; and then he went off on a great tangent and said that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs was corrupt. This is a totally unfair and unjustified statement. It should not have been made in this chamber in regard to public servants who cannot defend themselves publicly in these circumstances. If there is any corruption it is right there in his Party. If anything went wrong with the turtle project it started with a Minister belonging to the present Government Parties in the days preceding the Labor Government. That is when there was a lack of supervision and that is when it started. Senator Wright should not start accusing people who cannot answer for themselves.

I am tired of the political duplicity of Senator Wright, who comes in here not only with crocodile tears but also with turtle tears on every occasion when he tries to attract the attention of the gallery. I am not sure that many people were present in the gallery tonight, but he indulged in his usual crocodile tear show in an effort to get sympathy from the public and in an effort to get sympathy from the gallery. He knows that he would be the best ad hoc politician in this place. He plays to the gallery all the time and he does not mean a thing he says. I think that Senator Wright ought to follow me in this debate and apologise to the officials of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for the dirty accusations he made against them tonight.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! I cannot let you go on in that vein, Senator Keeffe.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Mr Chairman, I am defending people who cannot speak for themselves. Senator Wright came into this chamber tonight and made criminal accusations against people. He cannot back up those accusations, not even with the Auditor-General’s report. If anything went wrong and if there was any corruption, it was at government level; it was not at departmental level. The responsibility lies at government level, and honourable senators opposite should not try to get away from that.

My colleague, Senator Cavanagh, had insufficient time to develop his argument on the hire and construction of hovercraft. Even though we paid- I have made a note of some of the figures- a considerable amount of money, namely $264,950, for the hire of a hovercraft, while that hovercraft was operating it saved a fairly large number of lives. If we value each life at $50,000, or whatever it is worth in terms of the national economy, that hovercraft paid for itself unless honourable senators opposite in these circumstancesbecause these people are black and they value lives in the same way as they did during the Vietnam war- classify life cheaply. If honourable senators opposite do that, then of course it was a waste of money. The hovercraft saved more in lives than we spent in money. If there is corruption- I point this out to Senator Wright through you, Mr Chairman- there is corruption at government level again.

When the previous Government ordered the Australian built hovercraft it did so because it would have been cheaper to run and it would have provided a service which was needed. As Senator Bonner, a Government senator, points out, there is insufficient transport in this area. Total censorship is imposed by the Queensland Government under 2 Acts. People are not allowed to communicate with each other unless the white officials say they can. If they want to send telegrams from one person to another or from one island to another, the white officials decide, by censorship, whether those telegrams will be sent. The white officials open the mail and they employ every kind of censorship possible. Yet, that is the sort of racist legislation that Senator Wright and other honourable senators opposite are supporting. It is disgraceful for the Parliament of this country to do so but it is totally in keeping with the Government’s moral attitudes of censorship. This Government washed $ 1 56,28 1 down the drain. That is the amount this Government wasted by cancelling the contract to have the hovercraft built. I said during the Estimates Committee hearing- the departmental adviser was forced to agree with me: ‘We did the money cold’. He said: ‘Yes, we did the money cold’. I wish to refer again to the questions I asked during the hearings of Estimates Committee D. I referred to the fact that earlier in the day Senator Jean Melzer had asked a question about the hovercraft.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On what page does it appear?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am referring to page 607 of the transcript of the Estimates Committee D hearing on 14 October 1976. The sum that was referred to was $160,000, which is near enough, in round figures, because a few other dollars probably were spent on the side. I reintroduced this matter and I wanted to know the total cost of the hovercraft, how much was paid out and how much remained to be paid. I said at that time that the British hovercraft that we hired was a fairly expensive one. It was expensive to hire but it paid for itself in terms of the lives that were saved. Mr Hogan, who was the departmental adviser, said:

There are 2 separate proposals involved. There is the hire of a hovercraft from overseas, and there is the construction of one locally.

I wanted to know the costs of both. Then the departmental records were quoted by Mr Malone, and they are the figures I am quoting tonight. The departmental records showed that $264,950 was expended. This Government had not been in government a month before it cancelled the lease on the hovercraft and sent it back to Britain. What did this Government do a few weeks later? It gave away $156,281 of taxpayers’ money because it could not keep the contract. It was a bankrupt Government, politically and financially, and it could not keep the contract.

There is some slight discrepancy in the figures. The figure quoted to me in the Estimates Committee was $1 15,699. In fact, that was a distorted figure. According to the Auditor-General’s report, payments amounting to $28,065 were made by the Department to consultants engaged for the hiring and construction projects. It is up to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to see that the correct figures, not distorted figures, are quoted to Estimates Committees. I do not blame the departmental officers. The figures obviously have been hidden by the Government. The policy of this Government is to keep everything secret and not to disclose any more than it is prepared to disclose in the circumstances. This does not happen only in respect of Aboriginal affairs. It is happening in respect of the Department of Defence and in other areas, where the Government is hiding things under all sorts of other headings. I tell honourable senators opposite that this is a dishonest way of governing. They will not need the Governor-General to dismiss them when their turn comes: The people will dismiss the Government with a 60 per cent vote the other way.

I wish to refer to 2 more points. I agree with what my colleague, Senator Ted Robertson, said a few moments ago, namely, that the areas of health and education, in particular, will have a big effect on the kids of the Northern Territory. Whether those kids are black or white does not matter. Race does not come into it. We are discussing the appropriation for Aboriginal Affairs. Therefore we have to stick to the matters under this heading. I do not know whether honourable senators know that there are problems in relation to education in the Northern Territory. A new set of guidelines has obviously been laid down secretly by this Government that we shall go back to the old paternalistic system that what the white man thinks is good for the blacks the black man will cop. If one reads some of the reports- I must admit that they are not yet official, but I shall make copies of them available to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to keep its files up to date- one will see that there are problems in relation to some of the new systems of education which are being introduced or which are about to be introduced in the Northern Territory. Quite frankly, they fall far short of the standard set by the previous Labor Government.

One of the other things creating grave problems at the moment is the new tendency to establish outstations or to return to the homelands. I suppose the Pitjantjatjara and the Warrabri are 2 tribes which have gone into this extensively and very effectively. Last year they were given some $10,000 by way of establishment grants by the Labor Government to set themselves up in the new homelands to which they wanted to move. This year all money has been taken from them. They will not even be provided with enough money to set up a bore where they have no adequate water supply. No provision is made to teach their kids. But school teachers are prepared to go out under these primitive conditions and teach children. In fact, a couple of experiments are going on which are proving very effective. But the present Government has told these people that there is no money. One of these days, for the benefit of this chamber, I will play a good recording of something which Mr Ellicott said. It is not the telegram which we read out every second day in this place, the one which he eats with his Weetbix every morning for breakfast. It is a very good recording of what he said about land rights which was broadcast over some 27 or 28 radio transceivers throughout the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia. I suppose that some people on the other side of the chamber have never heard of this recording. Mr Ellicott as the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was a very shadowy minister indeed while he was trying to pick up votes for the Liberal and National Country Parties. Nevertheless, some time in the next week or two I will acquaint honourable senators with the contents of that tape recording.

I return to the questions that I posed earlier. I want to know where the Government is spending the money which is appropriated in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) which, if we are not discussing it now, we will be discussing shortly. My question applies not only to Appropriation Bill (No. 2 ), it applies also to Appropriation Bill (No. 1). We have not been given all the details. For instance, I was told that the expenditure for the hovercraft, or the taxpayers’ money which this Government lost, was $ 1 1 5,000 when, in fact, it was $ 1 56,000. How many more times has the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) hidden amounts of money in that way, when he will not even let his Department know about them? The Department bears the brunt. It has to make the explanations. Why does the Auditor-General have those figures when the Department of Aboriginal Affairs cannot have them? It is unfair. I hope that tonight, before the debate on the estimates is finished, the Government will come clean about some of the money that it has hidden under the counter in its own corrupt way.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Several matters have been raised, some last week when we were dealing with the estimates, for this group and some today. I will reply firstly to matters raised by Senator Mulvihill last week in relation to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I can give him information on 2 points. The first is with regard to a Mr C, whom he identified, in Sydney who was asked to obtain a birth certificate from Italy in order that his citizenship application could proceed. The situation is that no positive identification can be made of the person in question from the records existing in Australia. A record is held of a man born 2 years later and with different given names. The department has arranged for the applicant to be called in for a further interview in an effort to resolve the identity problem and to facilitate the matters raised by Senator Mulvihill.

The other matter he raised was with regard to the entry into Australia from Belgrade of the mother of a Mr I. Ruskovic. The difficulty in this case arose through the original nomination for the mother being one for permanent entry. It seems that following the son’s visit the mother decided to come to Australia as a visitor only, and Mr Ruskovic asked that the application be changed to one for a visitor visa. The normal procedure when permanent entry is indicated is that full migration processing should be undertaken. Mr Ruskovic was told this when he telephoned the Belgrade office. The Department in Belgrade has been in touch with the mother by telegram, and with a relative of the mother by telephone. It has been established that the mother wishes to come only as a visitor. She has been informed that if she forwards her passport to the Belgrade office a visitor visa will be issued immediately. The Department has also explained this situation to Mr Ruskovic through his brother-in-law. I hope that information assists Senator Mulvihill in the matters he raised.

Last week and again tonight there was some discussion about staff ceilings for the Department of Health in the Northern Territory. The staff ceiling levels for the Department of Health have been determined for the Department as a whole. In allocating ceiling levels for particular areas due regard is given to the number of staff necessary to maintain essential services as well as to recruitment possibilities. The staff ceiling for the Northern Territory is currently set at 2299. As at 3 November 1976, actual staff totalled 2253. This is a shortfall of 46 on the staff ceiling. The Department makes a continuing effort to recruit medical, nursing and paramedical staff in an endeavour to maintain and improve staffing levels for the provision of health care services in the Territory. Further advertising for staff in these categories is continuing. Recent salary increases for medical and nursing staff have improved this aspect. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) recently stated:

I remind the House that we have in any restriction on personnel and staff ceiling, emphasised that over the counter services to people- obviously this includes the delivery of health services- are not to be prejudiced as a result of staff ceilings that have been imposed on all Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities.

As Senator Kilgariff mentioned, there is a potential requirement for additional personnel to provide staff for an expansion of activities in the Territory. Should it appear that the ongoing recruitment action will put pressure on the allocated staff ceilings this matter will be reviewed within the context of the overall ceilings of the Department and, if necessary, the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) will take action towards adjustment of the ceiling.

I have other information with regard to Aboriginal health worker training in the Northern Territory which I believe would be of assistance to the Committee this evening. Advice indicates that currently in the rural areas of the Northern Territory, 180 Aboriginal health workers are either employed by the Department of Health or subsidised by it for employment by missions. Actual employment fluctuates from time to time, with a large turnover. Of the 180 Aboriginal health workers, the number in active training is 77. Most training is provided at health centres by departmental staff. In the urban area approximately 150 further Aboriginals are employed in health institutions in various roles. The Department has now established a task force, under the direction of the health education specialist, comprising a senior matron, health inspector, dietician, personnel officer and a visual aids officer which will be seconded full time to prepare detailed plans for the upgrading and expansion of Aboriginal health worker training in the Northern Territory. This will enable appropriate provision to be included in departmental forward estimates. I hope the information given in those 2 statements assists the senators who are concerned about the standard and availability of health services in the Territory. I assure them of the active interest and consideration of the Minister for Health in those very important matters.

Senator Keeffe showed interest during the hearings of Estimates Committee D and this evening in an amount of $200,000 which he specified as originally being made available for Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory. When this matter was raised at Estimates Committee D, I did not apperciate that he was referring to nutritional aspects in the care of the children. Where such considerations are related to health care, they are of course the responsibility of the Department of Health. In this regard I am advised that no separate item has been provided in the votes for that Department, either in the current year or earlier, but additional nutritional supplements considered necessary as part of the treatment have been provided in the past at hospitals and rural centres, and the Minister for Health has indicated that this aspect of the provision of health care should be expanded out of the funds provided in the current estimates. The Minister has directed that expenditure on this activity be regarded as a priority and that he be advised if the provision of nutritional supplements required as part of treatment is inhibited by the fund situation.

Many matters have been raised with regard to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I think I should give information on those matters on which I am able to supply it. It was said last week and again tonight that further information should be provided on the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service. It was said that guidelines had not been provided to the legal aid offices. I inform the Committee that these guidelines were discussed by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs ( Mr Viner) with legal aid officers earlier this month and that he is to meet with them again in December, as I indicated last week. We hope that these matters will soon be resolved and that the legal aid officers will work in accordance with the requirements of the Government and provide the service of legal aid to Aborigines as we would require it to be provided.

The matter of the hovercraft referred to by Senator Wright and others is a matter of some consideration. The Auditor-General, after a thorough investigation of this matter, reported the facts and expressed no opinion in his report.

The Department of Aboriginal Affairs had entered into negotiations for the construction of a hovercraft on the recommendation of the Department of Transport. A noted expert was retained as a consultant. He recommended the hire of a hovercraft to test the operational suitability of the craft. In the light of that experience, the escalating cost of the construction and the financial situation, the contract for the construction of a hovercraft was cancelled. All contracts were made through the Australian Government Stores and Tender Board or the Crown Solicitor, and there is no evidence or suggestion of any corruption as may have been suggested in some of the statements made this evening. I point out that the contract for the hire of the hovercraft was for a period of 12 months and that this period expired on 11 January 1976. This perhaps supplies the information that was requested when it was said that the Government had been in office only a few days when it cancelled the contract for the hovercraft. The expiry date of 1 1 January this year is the reply and response to that matter as it was raised.

In a general way other matters were raised with regard to turtle farming and other experiments that may have been undertaken. Whilst this particular aspect of work has been the subject of detailed investigation, I think it should be said that the Public Accounts Committee has also conducted a very exhaustive examination of this matter. As I understand it, the report of that Committee is not yet available. I feel sure that when the Auditor-General stated that he believed that increasing delays in receiving information made it pointless for pursuit of the matter any further, it ought to be said that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has been subjected to intensive investigation over a period of years by a number of inquiries and studies. If the AuditorGeneral reached the conclusion he did following some of the probing that he undertook, I can only accept his viewpoint. My own experience as a member of the Public Accounts Committee was that the general work of the Department was being impeded by the intensive investigation and the preparation of material. It would seem that whilst there has been concern about aspects that have been raised by Senator Wright and others, the matter at this stage is still subject to report by the Public Accounts Committee. A great deal of information will be provided in that report on some of the matters that have been raised.

Senator Cavanagh referred to the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee. Funds have been provided for only one national meeting prior to the completion of the inquiry to which he referred. No funds have yet been provided for an election, again pending the outcome of the inquiry and its recommendations.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You have that now.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– We now have the report of the inquiry. As I understood it, the Minister expected to table it this week. I had thought that it may have been today. Perhaps it will be tomorrow. That report will be made public and tabled, I suggest, this week in the Senate. If the recommendations are such that there is to be continuity of the Consultative Committee and there is to be an election for the members of it, funds can be provided in the supplementary estimates. I am sure the Minister will have this matter under his attention.

Aboriginal employment in the Northern Territory has had the attention of not only the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister for Health but also myself and my own Department. I believe that the way in which Senator Robertson raised the matters he did is a very responsible way in which to approach the subject. I would hope that we are able to provide further opportunities for employment and training for Aborigines in the Northern Territory and everywhere else in Australia. I have been concerned about the payment of unemployment benefits and other benefits through my Department and reports that these benefits are not always beneficial to the communities when they reach them. This is a matter that requires our attention and perhaps a policy decision, but I do not believe that it is a matter that has a simple resolution. Things have to be weighed against one anotherthe dignity of work and the right of a person to have his own entitlement in his own name as against perhaps a community developing programs and projects which may benefit the entire community. Several Ministers have these matters under consideration. I hope that we will be able to enhance the employment and training opportunities and raise the standards in general of these people who live in communities around Australia.

The matters raised by Senator Bonner with regard to the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders will be kept under attention. The transport and communications of those people living in the Torres Strait Islands is a matter of concern to us all. Senator Keeffe raised more than once the items of expenditure under division 813.01, which as I realise are not in the Bill strictly before the Committee at this stage. Senator Keeffe required detail. I would refer him to the explanatory notes for the Senate Estimates Committees. Pages 66, 67 and 68 give great detail on many of the matters that were raised by him. In particular, on page 68 he will find a breakdown by States and a comparison of this year’s expenditure with expenditure last year under the headings of housing, health, education, employment, welfare, enterprises, town management, recreation and so on. If it suits the convenience of this Committee I suggest that

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I appreciate very much the full and satisfactory reply of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), especially to the questions I raised. I take it that the hovercraft that was on hire was kept for the 12 months term of its hire and that the cancellation of the one that had been ordered for construction was caused, as the Minister said, by escalation of costs and financial restrictions and not because, as the AuditorGeneral said, it was the Department’s opinion that it was not a suitable method of transport for the Torres Strait Islands. I think that statement going unquestioned could do a great disservice to the promoters of the hovercraft, who may desire to recommend its use in Australian waters on some future occasion. That establishes the fact that the waste that occurred through the necessity for cancellation was not the fault of the previous Government. It was an action of the present Minister. There may be some justification for it in the restrictions imposed upon him by the Treasurer, but at least the blame has been put where it rightly belongs. page 68 be incorporated in Hansard as a complete answer to the matters raised by Senator Keeffe.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Is leave granted?

Senator Keeffe:

– It is not the complete answer, but I do not object.

The CHAIRMAN:

-There being no objection, leave is granted.

The document read as follows-

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I want to refer to the difference in the figures relating to the hovercraft. I wonder whether the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) can explain why the Auditor-General has one figure and the Minister has another, varying between $1 15,000 and $156,000-plus. While I am on my feet I would like to ask a couple of other questions. I take it that if these appropriations are passed tonight there will be a provision of $7m unexplained.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I do not have the information here as I have just given it to Hansard for its records. I am advised that the figure quoted to the Senate Estimates Committee was a requote of a statement made earlier in the meeting by an honourable senator. I think that the figure may have been misquoted in a question and referred to again by the officer concerned.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– If somebody has made a misstatement, that would not be acceptable in any accountant’s language. According to the Hansard record of Estimates

Committee D the total payments to the contractor were $115,699. It was Senator Wright who brought in the Auditor-General’s report tonight which caused all these problems. The AuditorGeneral ‘s report says:

In April 1975 the Department entered into an agreement with an Australian contractor for the design and construction of an air cushion vehicle for use in the Torres Strait. Subsequently, in accordance with a Deed of Compromise and Mutual Release executed by the Commonwealth and the contractor on 19 May 1976 the agreement was terminated. According to departmental records payments to the contractor total $1 15,699 including $18,731 compensation for termination of the contract. In addition, upon termination of the contract, the Department transferred its interest in buildings and materials, valued at $ 12,527, to the contractor.

The Government gave him a Christmas gift, except that it happened to be in May. The report continues:

Payments amounting to $28,065 have also been made by the Department to consultants engaged for the hiring and construction projects.

Unless my calculation is wrong, those 3 sums are well in excess of the $1 15,000. Can the Minister please explain?

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-The addition of the 3 figures-$l 15,000, $12,000 and $28,000-comes to $ 156,000-odd. The $1 15,000 includes the $18,000.

Proposed expenditures passed.

Department of Science

Proposed expenditure, $ 167,694,000.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I refer to division 540- Administrative. I think that this is the occasion when I should raise a matter which I raised in August of this year and which is still important to me. I have told the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) that I intend to pursue this matter which I raised with him early in August concerning his department ‘s liaison with the National Disasters Organisation in relation to weather reports generally and to other matters. He told me at the time that he understood that the Department was satisfied with the present arrangements. On 24 August, at page 21 1 of Hansard, I asked him the following question:

The Minister for Science will recall that recently I asked him whether or not in his opinion sufficient weather and other information was available to the Natural Disasters Organisation to enable it to perform its duties properly. I refer in particular to this morning’s Press report about the second earth tremor in Darwin. The article stated that the Bureau of Mineral Resources in Canberra did not learn about the tremor until yesterday because its telegraphic equipment connecting Darwin with the Bureau in Canberra had not operated since the Darwin cyclone. Is the Minister able to bring us up to date on these matters? Will he look again to ascertain whether the Natural Disasters Organisation has the best equipment possible to enable it to perform is national duties?

The Minister referred generally to the question which he had answered before and said that that answer indicated that the Organisation had direct communication with Darwin and, so far as he was aware, did not require any other. Later he sent me a reply which read as follows:

On 24 August Senator Bishop asked a question without notice concerning the Natural Disasters Organisation and the Bureau of Mineral Resources. Part of the information he sought concerned weather information which is made available to the NDO and I said in reply that I had earlier obtained an answer for the honourable senator which indicated that the Organisation was entirely satisfied with the information that it received.

He then referred to the Bureau having a close working relationship with the NDO and to how it received warnings. He continued:

There is a close liaison with the NDO and State emergency services in time of emergency due to hazardous weather. The Bureau has provided information for NDO public education programs on tropical cyclones and floods. Bureau officers ave been involved in conferences with NDO and State emergency organisations and relations are most cordial.

With regard to Senator Bishop’s query on channels of communication between Darwin and the BMR, I should point out that the BMR is part of the Department of National Resources. That part of the question should be directed to the Minister responsible.

After I received that reply I suggested to the Minister that he should refer the question to the Department, and he did so. I have received a reply which I shall read. As to communications and the responsibilities of the Minister I ask whether the position is as it was reported by the Minister on 15 September. What has changed? Has there been any instance where the head of the Natural Disasters Organisation has stated that communications with the Minister’s Department are satisfactory or that they need to be improved? On 19 August, I suggested to Senator Webster that, Darwin not being directly connected with the NDO, in the event of any extensive earthquake the information would not be available to the headquarters in Canberra for some hours. On 19 October he sent me this letter:

Dear Senator,

You will recall your question without notice on 24 August, and my answers both then and on 15 September, relating to the Natural Disasters Organisation. Copies are attached.

Subsequently you asked me to seek a reply from the Bureau -

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I put the question:

That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The Chairman having reported accordingly-

page 1761

ADJOURNMENT

River Murray Commission Annual Report- Newspapers- Mount Larcom Mining Project-Australian Broadcasting Commission- News Reports

The PRESIDENT:

– 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.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I want to raise 2 matters in the adjournment debate tonight, the first being the tabling of the River Murray Commission annual report. I do not want to transgress standing orders by debating this matter tonight because I have yet to continue my remarks on the motion that the Senate take note of the report. However, when Senator Withers tabled the report on 3 November he said:

For the information of Senator McLaren and pursuant to section 2 1 of the River Murray Waters Act -

My inquiries reveal that there are insufficient copies of this report available for all honourable senators. I am disturbed about this because the report contains some vitally important information which will be of great concern to many people who have an interest in the quality of the water in the River Murray. I am concerned not only that there are not sufficient copies available for all honourable senators but also that there may not be enough copies available in the government bookselling outlets for people who want to purchase copies. I vividly remember the unavailability of copies of the report of the River Murray Working Party. I hope that the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) can take action to see that sufficient copies are made available. He may be able to tell me why there are not sufficient copies now. I hope that it is not because of economic factors and is not another of the cutbacks in expenditure by the present Government.

This brings me to another matter which causes me some concern, and that is the removal of a newspaper rack from the lower corridor on the Senate side of Parliament House. I direct these remarks to you, Mr President, because it comes within your province. On making inquiries I found that one of these racks was removed during the last weekly recess. I checked the remaining rack as late as today and found that some

States have no newspapers on it while other States have more than one. My check today revealed that the newspapers available now are the Australian Financial Review, the Canberra Times, the Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Sydney Daily Mirror and the Sydney Sun. So New South Wales has 3 newspapers on this rack. On it are also the Melbourne Age and the Melbourne Herald.

Senator Chaney:

– Have you ever thought of writing a letter?

Senator McLAREN:

– Victoria has 2 newspapers on the rack. I found that there are no Western Australian newspapers, and that should be of some concern to Senator Chaney who is interjecting. Also there are no Tasmanian, Queensland or South Australian newspapers. The abscence of South Australian newspapers concerns me greatly. I have observed over a long period that the newspapers from all the States which were displayed in the lower corridor until several weeks ago were very popular and well patronised. The removal of these newspapers undoubtedly must place a greater strain on the facilities available on the main floor of the Library. I am concerned that no South Australian newspapers are available for reading in the lower corridor and I would like to be informed of the reason for the removal of the newspapers from that area. I ask whether this is another facet of the Government’s economy drive or whether in the case of the Adelaide Advertiser it is because the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia, Dr Tonkin, has described the Advertiser as ‘ Dunstan ‘s Daily ‘.

I want to refer to some of the remarks made by Dr Tonkin when he opened the annual conference of the Liberal Party in South Australia some weeks ago. The Advertiser of 30 August 1 976 reported as follows:

Dr Tonkin criticised the Advertiser, saying many party members had said in recent months that is could well be renamed ‘ Dunstan ‘s Daily ‘.

Earlier, he said: ‘In at least one section of the media the fundamental need and responsibility to pre vide balanced coverage seems to have been lost sight of altogether.

People on our side of politics in South Australia had been complaining for a great number of years that is was not a balanced view that was given in the Advertiser. It was often referred to as the bible of the Liberal Party which influenced people on that side of politics. If it is now giving a balanced view, I congratulate the Advertiser. The article continued reporting Dr Tonkin as saying:

Instead it seems to be the view of some who put the paper together that Government media releases must always be taken at face value and must always be published, regardless of whether or not space is given for any balancing points of view expressed by the Opposition or anyone else.

He is expressing the same sentiments as we in the Australian Labor Party expressed for a great number of years. The report of his remarks continues:

These views are usually run at the end of the story.

Editing seems to consist of chopping at the end, or of cutting from the bottom and guess whose copy goes first?’

He said he was not Press bashing but was concerned to put the record straight for party members who had asked why the Opposition did not challenge the Government’s statements more frequently.

He said: ‘The reporters write the stories but whether or not our point of view appears in print sometimes seems to be purely a matter of chance.

Apologies have been made but these are not worth much when we have missed out on getting our point of the story to you.’

That is the explanation which Dr Tonkin gave to his Party colleagues at the conference in Adelaide. It could be said that the Advertiser is giving a balanced view because we have a very progressive government in South Australia. Dr Tonkin can use all the sour grapes he likes against the Advertiser, but I hope that in the interests of the South Australian public the Advertiser continues to publish a balanced view. That is all we in the Labor Party ask for and that is all the people who buy the newspaper ask for. I also hope that we have the opportunity to read a balanced view by having the Advertiser restored to the newspaper rack in the lower corridor of Parliament House before many days go by.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– Some days ago I raised in this chamber, during the discussion of an urgency motion on civil liberties, the problem of the Mount Larcom farmers in Queensland. Whilst I do not want to go into a long debate tonight- I am not in the habit of speaking every night in the adjournment debate- there are a number of things I have to raise in order to get some sort of satisfaction. It will be recalled that over a period of time, and particularly during this sessional period, I have raised a number of matters in the hope that some Minister would be able to give me some information about what was likely to happen or what action the Government was taking in regard to them. No information of this son has been given. It is obvious that the Government, in its concentration on the reduction of inflation, has forgotten all about the human side of life.

The Mount Larcom incident concerned almost half a hundred farmers and their families, who have been deprived of a living because of collusion between the Government of Queensland and a certain mining company which I have nominated previously. In my view there are 3 steps that can be taken, and perhaps all three will have to be taken. A royal commission ought to be initiated by this Government; the matter ought to be referred to the Trade Practices Commission; and, probably the most logical thing to do, the matter ought to be investigated because it does appear that there might be export of the products from this mining field and this is an area in which the Australian Government can act. If none of these things is done I propose to refer all the documents and everything associated with the Mount Larcom scandal to the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties. Civil liberties groups appear to be the only watchdogs of the rights of individuals in Australia today.

It is some days since I first raised this matter, so I want to run over some of the points again as background information. The first work carried out in this area by this mining company was back in 1969. The company started construction of the Bulwer Island cement plant in Brisbane early in the 1970s. The plant was completed in 1975. This was well before the final decision on the Mount Larcom mining case was made public. It is pretty obvious that the company was sure, because of its collusion with the State Government, that it would get acess to this area for mining. The chairman of Queensland Cement, which was the company involved, stated in the company’s 1975 report.

This cement plant was built to take the Gladstone clinker material which would be made from the Mount Larcom material.

There was a deputation of farmers to the Minister for Mines. Those farmers took along their maps showing alternative limestone localities, but the Minister said: ‘I’ve got more maps than you- and I am not interested in looking at yours’. That was totally arrogant. Obviously that Minister also was involved in some sore of collusion. The Mines Department has stated that if the farmers did not give all the land to Darra for mining the Department would not give it to any other company but would hold it in trust for Darra which would want it at some future date. In other words, Darra has stated that it has reduced the size of its leases; that it can come back at any time and get the land. There is no reason why the land cannot be sold to anyone else. Of course, if there were an attempt to do this the State Government would step in and prevent it.

At the mining warden’s hearing, Darra Cement said that it would need all the land, otherwise the project was uneconomical. Both the Queensland Premier and the Minister for

Mines told the members of the group quite vocally that if they went to the Press any more the Premier and the Minister for Mines would drop them, not do anything for them and leave them to fight their own battles on a miner’s homestead lease. This statement was made to the farmers on 24 June 1976. 1 am talcing up the case for these people, not because 1 suspect that there are any votes in it but because human lives and civil liberties are involved. This sort of thing should not go on in this country in 1976, where a major mining company, in collusion with the State Government, can trample on the civil liberties of a group of people in this area. There was a promise at the time that a decision on the matter would not be made until there was a round table conference with the farmers, the mining company, the Department and all other concerned parties. But the farmers at that time were so upset about this matter that in the by-election in the Port Curtis electorate they decided to ban the election. They wrote letters to the Premier, to the Minister for Mines and to the Department, but they did not receive a reply to any of that correspondence.

Two wells and one bore in the area have started yielding poor returns. All that had happened to that point of time was that a number of holes had been drilled to test the area. The farmers need the underground water supplies. These are the supplies on which they rely to keep their heads above water, to use a phrase that is probably not very appropriate in that context. They need the underground water supplies in order to make their properties reasonably prosperous and so that they can earn a reasonable living. On 20 October 1976 Senator Colston and I endeavoured to incorporate in Hansard a number of documents. The excuse given by the Government at that time for not allowing the incorporation of the documents was that it did not have much money and would not be able to afford the extra size of Hansard. Since then this matter has become a controversy in that some of the documents were hand written. It appears that in future, after the appropriate committee has looked at this matter, we may have to type out handwritten documents before they can be incorporated in Hansard.

Tonight I will ask for leave to incorporate only one letter in Hansard. It is in very clear typing. It would Le quite readable by the people who have to set it in print. I am not blaming the people who have to set documents in print for documents not being incorporated in Hansard. I think the reason why their incorporation has not been allowed goes much deeper than that, and that is casting no aspersions on you, Mr President. This happens to be a case of scandal proportions. A number of honourable senators opposite are ashamed of what has happened. There are people in the Queensland Parliament who hope that the scandal will never get out, because if it does some of them probably will not hold their seats at the next election. In the meantime the welfare and the livelihood of almost 50 families are at stake. Some of the documents were incorporated in Hansard and we tabled some of them on the following day. Two-thirds of the documents were incorporated in Hansard either on the day on which the case was presented or on the following day. I am not seeking the incorporation of other documents at the moment. I will do that at the appropriate time.

The liberty and rights of the Mount Larcom farmers are under continual threat by the Queensland Government and by Darra Mining, which is an offshoot of a cement company which controls nearly all Queensland ‘s cement outlets. The company fixes its own prices; it has a monopoly in Queensland. I believe that this is a reason why the Trade Practices Commission should properly investigate the company. I hope that when the Government reads in Hansard what I have said tonight it will do something about the matter. Since being granted the mining leases in the Bracewell-East End areas earlier this year the mining company has continued to study the area in terms of surveying for roads, etc. Often these surveyors and company officials have shown no thought or courtesy by advising or asking the farmers whether it was all right if they went on to their lands. They have just taken a total liberty in do this sort thing.

Recently a number of surveyors arrived in Mount Larcom and proceeded to survey the property of a man named Paddy Coughlan without his permission. In other words, they trespassed. When he approached them he found that they did not have a letter of authority from the company or the company’s consultant engineers. In fact, they were trespassers in the strict letter of the law. They left on his request but returned on 20 October 1976 with a letter of authority. This has all happened in the last two or three weeks. The letter is the reason why I raise the matter again because contained within it is certain evidence which suggests to me that it is i Federal issue and that it should be immediately investigated. Mr President, as you have already glanced at the letter, and in order to save time, I seek leave now to incorporate the letter in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

– I can see no objection to its incorporation. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The document read as follows-

page 1764

HOLDERBANK -CMPS

Consulting Engineers Joint Venture Gladstone Project 14 October 1976

page 1764

GM:CW

page 1764

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Mr Robert Gordon Harrison, Registered Surveyor, is engaged with his assistants on surveys that we are carrying out to the requirements of the Queensland Irrigation and Water Supply Commission for the purpose of placing bench marks alongside a number of bores, wells and springs in the vicinity of Bracewell and Eastend, and connecting those bench marks to the State levelling system.

These bench marks will be used during the next few years to monitor groundwater conditions at each position as part of an investigation into the possible effects of quarrying activities on groundwater resources.

Mr Harrison’s signature appears below for purposes of identification.

The lands concerned include, among others,

Lessees: P. and R. Coughlan- P. 0. Box 2, Mt Larcom MHL 758 andMHL 799

Lessee: R. Coughlan- address as above MHL 886

Lessee: J. P. Coughlan-Mr Larcom MHL 718, 719, 737, 746 and 750.

We would greatly appreciate any assistance that you could give to Mr Harrison by way of permission for him to enter on land to carry out his work and to assist in the preservation of the bench marks that will be left at each position.

Signature of R. G. Harrison

Address: HOLDERBANK- CMPS, 2 Thomas Street, P.O. Box 201, Chatswood, N.S.W. 2067, Australia. Telex: AA20557. Telephone: 4120444.

In Switzerland- HOLDERBANK- CMPS, c/o Holderbank Management and Consulting Ltd, Technical Center, Engineering Department, CH-5113 Holderbank (AG) Switzerland, Telephone: 064 532222. Telegram: Techsteile Holderbank Aargau. Telex: tsnbk 68 1 40.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Thank you, Mr President. You will note that there are no 4-letter words in it, although I think that some of the people who have had to put up with what is outlined in the letter would probably be using 4-letter words. Those honourable senators who read the letter in Hansard tomorrow will note that it is headed Joint Venture Gladstone Project’. I was always under the impression that joint ventures had to have the seal of approval of the Federal Government. I do not know; maybe this Government has changed the law. It has changed an awful lot of laws since 13 December last year. It is ignoring some laws altogether as though they did not exist. Of course, it has silently changed other laws when the moon has gone down at night. There is a suspicion that one of the parties in the joint venture may be a foreign company. One would think that the Federal Government would have some interest in it. According to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Government has an interest in foreign capital. The consultant engineers for Darra Mining are Holderbank, which is a Swiss company. I do not know what the holdings in that company are, but it is the Federal Government’s responsibility to find out. It seems more than a coincidence that a senior management person, Mr George Walker, who incidentally was responsible for most of the ground work in the Mount Larcom area, was recently in Switzerland. We do not know why he went to Switzerland. Maybe he moved around like that other friend of honourable senators opposite, Mr Wiley Fancher, who travelled about at government expense for a long period. He did not do anything except use government money. Rumours would indicate that the purpose of the visit by Mr George Walker could have been to raise foreign capital for the mining project.

I am very disturbed about happenings in Queensland concerning this matter. I respectfully request the Government to investigate a number of matters immediately. There is no need for me to reiterate them. I think most honourable senators opposite would not particularly trust the Premier of Queensland, and that is not being nasty to him, although I did note yesterday that a well known Minister in Queensland said that the Premier was the only God-fearing political leader in Australia and that he is the only man who works according to the word of God. I think that there are a few Christians in this Parliament. If that Minister had any money I would be prepared to sue him for it, but obviously he does not have any money. So he is getting a little bit of cheap publicity. The matters that startle me and which indicate that things are not what they should be must be investigated immediately by this Government before dozens of families are wrongfully evicted from their land. I want answers to the following questions because at the moment these people are living under a reign of terror. They are being stampeded by the mining company, they are being stampeded by the Queensland Government and they are being stampeded by others who are interested in the venture in an indirect way.

I pose these questions: What does the term Joint Venture Gladstone Project’ mean? The Government ought to be able to come up with replies to these questions. Who are the companies involved? Are any of them foreign-owned or controlled? If they are foreign-owned or controlled, how much Swiss money or capital is involved? Has this joint venture been ratified by the Federal Government? That is right on the doorstep of this Government. Is the Government aware of the many claims by all those concerned that there has been collusion over a long period between the company concerned and the Queensland Government? What is the Australian Government going to do to protect the rights of the farmers if this is true? Is the Government going to intervene? Is it going to lean- to use the difficult political word- on the Queensland Government to make sure these people get a fair go or is it, like a number of other people, running scared of the Queensland Government in case the Premier decides to secede? Can somebody tell me why Mr Walker went overseas? Was it to arrange finance for the project or did he go over on a health trip at company expense? If all these things have happened did the Federal Government give them any sort of official sanction?

These are very important questions. I hope the Government will take them on board. I hope it will have the political honesty to investigate the case of these people. Maybe 50 farmers and their families do not particularly concern the Government. Maybe that is only a drop in the bucket and maybe because they live in the electorate of Capricornia the Government is not going to be worried about them at the next Federal election. But if the Government multiplies this many times- this is happening in a number of other places around Australia- it will see that it will have an effect on the Government’s voting pattern. So I suggest with very great respect that as soon as the Government can investigate this matter it ought to be investigated and the people of this area ought to be told what is going to happen to them.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– This evening I wish to raise some matters in regard to the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s news services in Queensland since the introduction of daylight saving in the southern States. On 13 October a Government Senator asked a question in relation to this subject and this was of course before daylight saving was introduced. Senator Carrick gave what was probably meant to be a jocular reply but with all respect to Senator Carrick I would say that some people in Queensland who read the reply would consider it to be a flippant reply. This is a very real problem to people in Queensland. In reply to a question about what would happen to news broadcasts when daylight saving was introduced in the southern States Senator Carrick said:

Of course, some solutions can be offered. One alternative solution is for Queensland to adopt eastern summer time and then no such probelms would anse. Assuming the assertion of the right to be different, what happened in the past, as I understand it, is that the radio stations and television stations recorded the programs and rebroadcast them so that in fact the curtains did not have to fade in Queensland and the people heard their programs on time. I am not aware that there is any difficulty with this matter, but if there is any likelihood that the programs will not be readjusted I will bring the question to the attention of the relevant Minister and seek a reply.

There have been some aspects of readjustment which Queensland people have had to face. For instance, the ABC program PM is now heard at 5.5 p.m. rather than 6.5 p.m. I think this has resulted in a smaller listening audience to the program. Additionally the main radio news service is now broadcast at 6 p.m. rather than at 7 p.m. I am referring to radio news services, not television. A number of people have come to me and said that the new arrangement of having the radio news service broadcast at 6 p.m. rather than at 7 p.m. is not satisfactory. Other people have complained that they are not able to listen to the program PM because of its new time slotone hour earlier. The argument has been put, I think, very succinctly in a letter that I received from Mr Jackman the Secretary of the Graziers Association of Central and Northern Queensland. Because the argument is so well put I would like to read this letter to the Senate. It says:

Resulting from a meeting of the Muttaburra branch of this Association held on Saturday 23 October 1976, 1 have been asked by the branch to forward a copy of a motion adopted at the meeting, lodging the strongest possible protest at the changed times of the ABC Queensland news broadcasts due to commence after daylight saving comes into being in the southern States.

The feelings of the members of the Muttaburra branch are those of many people in western Queensland and we seek your assistance to have the matter rectified.

The resolution reads’.

That complete disgust at the change of news times on ABC be voiced to the appropriate authority- the main reason for objecting to daylight saving on radio by inland country and urban people is that owing to working by daylight rather than by time we don ‘t always hear the news during the daylight hours, therefore we rely heavily on the evening news. Most people in Queensland are literate and take great interest in current affairs, and as we contribute towards the payment of ABC staff we should have some say in how our programs are run.

The general opinion is that the news, local, State and national, be broadcast as usual between 6.45 p.m. and 7. IS p.m. Queensland summer time, or normal Eastern Standard Time, and if the southern States elect to change to daylight saving time then may they suffer the consequences by having their news at 8 p.m.’

I would point out that the majority of the population listening to radio are country people or urban people living in remote towns and therefore by altering the timetable the ABC is discriminating against the majority of the audience.

Finally I would point out that most country and urban people prefer to work during the cooler part of the daylight hours in summer and therefore 6 p.m. as a news time in Queensland would be wasting the ABC’s time and our money, as there would be little or no audience to hear the program.

We therefore request the ABC to return to the 7 p.m. time slot as it is a more equitable hour for most people in this State to listen to news broadcasts.

There is little that I can add to what I think is a succinct argument by Mr Jackman. I would say, however, that it is all very well for people in Canberra to sit here and receive their news broadcasts at 7 p.m. but it would be well for them to think of the people in the western areas of Queensland who do have the problems which were expressed by Mr Jackman and would like to have the ABC news which was previously received at 7 o’clock to be broadcast still at 7 p.m. rather than 6 p.m. So I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General to take my comments as serious comments and give them due consideration and to give due consideration to the points that have been put by the people who are being disadvantaged now in Queensland because of a re-allocation of program times in that State.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Let me say that when Senator Collard asked me the question my response was in no sense meant to be jocular at all. I took the question seriously. The honourable senator should again read that part of the answer which states:

I am not aware that there is any difficulty with this matter, but if there is any likelihood that the programs will not be readjusted I will bring the question to the attention of the relevant Minister and seek a reply.

Senator Colston:

– I did read the whole answer to the Senate.

Senator CARRICK:

– That is a straightforward and an earnest attempt to deal with the matter. The simple fact is that what the honourable senator has not said is that as regards television and television news the Australian Broadcasting Commission television station has adjusted. They record and hold and transmit at 7 p.m. Queensland time. So what I have foreshadowed before is happening with television. The honourable senator now says that it is not happening with radio. He has put forward some information concerning a cross-section of people who hold the view that 6 o’clock is too early and 7 o’clock should not be too early. I remind him that this is a matter of judgment in the various States. For instance, in my State the habit of the commercial television stations is to move backwards towards 6 o’clock as the time for the most popular demand for a viewing hour for news.

Senator Keeffe:

– They cannot compete with the ABC. That is why they go back.

Senator CARRICK:

-If Senator Keeffe had known the times he would know they were moving back from 6.30 p.m. to 6 o’clock and not from 7 o’clock to 6 o’clock. His interjection is irrelevant to this situation. I think that basically many people in my State use the 6 o’clock listening time as a major time for news. Nevertheless the senator has asked that we take his comments seriously. I will draw the attention of my colleague in another place to his comments and ask him to give them his consideration.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I take it that the matter raised by Senator Keeffe relates to the national resources area and, if not, then to the Attorney-General’s area. It partly concerns rnining and partly civil liberties. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister. In relation to Senator McLaren’s remarks, I shall seek information as to the number of copies already printed and whether there are sufficient copies both for distribution and for sale. I hope to have that information when the Senate meets tomorrow afternoon.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator McLaren raised matters in regard to the reduction in the number of newspapers in the lower corridor at Parliament House. I must point out to the honourable senator that each honourable senator receives 3 newspapers of his or her choosing in his or her office. Further, 44 daily newspapers are delivered to the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party and 28 to the National Country Party to enable all honourable senators to have access to newspapers without having to wait for some other person first to look at them on arrival, and so on.

In the Parliamentary Library is a complete coverage of newspapers. It was deemed to be excessively wasteful to have the number of newspapers which were hitherto provided in the lower corridor. In respect to the spread of newspapers as between States, this is a matter that I shall investigate immediately. I can assure the honourable senator that I receive the Adelaide Advertiser daily, as he would in his own office. But I was not aware that the coverage of all States down in the lower gallery was not being provided. That I shall attend to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.4 p.m.

page 1768

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circula

Aerosol Propellants (Question No. 1233)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. Are the commonly used refrigerants and aerosol propellants F-ll (CC1,F) and F-12 (CC12F?) receiving attention as potential dangers to the stratospheric ozone layer.
  2. Is it claimed that these commonly used refrigerants are at present in the atmosphere solely as a result of human activity.
  3. Is it also suggested that carbon tetrachloride present in the atmosphere is derived from man-made emissions of this substance.
  4. What is the present state of knowledge with regard to the threat posed to the atmosphere from man-made pollutants.
  5. What monitoring of these dangers is taking place in Australia and what Australian information is available to confirm or deny the dangers which some of these substances pose.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes. Investigations into Freon 1 1 (FI 1) are conducted on a regular and continuing basis by the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Physics as part of its overall research into pollutants. Fuller details are given in the answer to part (5). Measurements of Freon 12 (FI 2) in Australia are not made at present.

Special studies have been conducted by United States Government agencies and other investigations are being carried out by the WHO, WMO, UNEP and the OECD.

  1. Yes, it is the opinion of research workers both here and overseas that the gases constituting refrigerants and aerosol can propellants are present in the atmosphere solely as a result of human activity.
  2. Yes. Research at the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Physics recently confirmed that almost all of the carbon tetrachloride in the atmosphere is of man-made origin.
  3. There is a general agreement amongst workers in this area that man-made pollutants could be a threat to stratospheric ozone. However, since the inception of CSIRO ‘s ozone program some 20 years ago results have provided no definite evidence on any change in the concentration of stratospheric ozone which can be ascribed to pollutants.

It is essential to understand that present knowledge of stratospheric chemistry is insufficient to say more than that a threat is possible. Also, because of the absence of well defined trends in observations to date, it is not possible to draw any reliable conclusions as to what the future holds.

The most recent reports on this subject was presented in September by the United States National Academy of Science. At present only a summary is available. Although the report does not reach firm conclusions it makes clear that potential threat to the stratosphere by man-made pollutants does exist.

  1. For almost 20 years the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Physics has adopted a network of ozone observing stations stretching from Darwin through Brisbane, Aspendale, Perth and Hoban to Macquarie Island. Measurements are made daily. On a fortnightly basis balloon borne sampling of ozone is carried out from Aspendale. This provides a vertical profile of ozone concentrations from ground level to, approximately, 27 000 metres. Ozone in the surface air is also measured continuously at Aspendale and on a oncedaily basis at Macquarie Island.

On a regular and continuing basis the Division monitors the following atmospheric pollutants all of which could conceivably have a deleterious effect on the ozone layer.

  1. Freon 1 1. Ground level concentrations of Freon 1 1 are monitored regularly at Aspendale and Cape Grim in Tasmania (the interim site for the Australian Baseline Station). Using aircraft sampling the Freon 1 1 content of air at 4000 metres over Bass Strait and at 9000 metres over the Great Australian Bight is regularly measured. Recently, the Division commenced a limited sampling program of this gas up to 27 000 metres (well into the stratosphere) using high altitude balloons.
  2. Oxides of Nitrogen. These occur as the products of industry, as components of exhaust gases of motor cars and aero-engines and as a result of widespread use of artificial fertilizers. It is hypothesised that they could cause a reduction in the concentration of atmospheric ozone. Concentrations of these gases in the near surface air are currently measured at Aspendale and Brisbane and measurements will soon commence in Penh. Next year, it is proposed to start monitoring nitric oxide in the stratosphere- the first such measurements made in the Southern Hemisphere. Only just started is the measurement of nitrous oxide, the results of which work will provide a link with the problem of artificial fertilizers.
  3. Erythemal ultra-violet radiation (those wave-lengths considered to increase the incidence of skin cancer). A network of 6 erythemal ultra-violet radiation monitoring stations over Australia was established one year ago. The apprehension expressed over a reduction in stratospheric ozone is related directly to the increased ultra-violet which a depleted ozone layer, acting as an ultra-violet filter, would let through. Systematic trends can be ascertained only after several years data have been acquired.

I understand that the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development is maintaining a data base on fluorocarbon production and usage in Australia. It is coordinating Australian input to the OECD projects concerned with the fluorocarbon industry base.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that an interdepartmental committee, convened by my Department, is currently considering what steps might be taken to further develop Australia’s involvement in the investigation of the stratosphere. Investigations aimed at a better understanding of possible dangers to the stratosphere from human activities are receiving particular attention from the committee.

Family Allowances (Question No. 1279)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Is the Department of Social Security, or an interdepartmental committee of which the Department is a member, currently investigating the possibility of making payments under the family allowance system taxable. If so, what are the details.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

No investigation of the possibility of making family allowance payments taxable is currently being undertaken by the Depanment of Social Security nor by any interdepartmental committee on which the Department is represented.

Statutory Authorities under control of Department of Defence (Question No. 949)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which statutory authorities come under the control of the Department of Defence.
  2. What is the name, occupation, date and term of appointment, and remuneration of each holder of public office of each authority.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Defence Force Retirement Death Benefits Authority; Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board; Administrative Review Tribunal Established Under Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973; Australian Services Canteens Organisation; Australian Services Council for Canteens; Australian Services Canteens Organisation Board of Management.
  2. See following table.

Vinyl Chloride Monomer (Question No. 874)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Is the Minister aware of the contents of an article published in the Lancet of 3 April 1 976, at page 734, indicating an increased genetic risk to children born of men exposed at their work to vinyl chloride monomer (VCM).
  2. How many Australian men work in industries where they are exposed to VCM.
  3. 3 ) What steps are being taken to inform them of the possible risk to children born while they are working exposed to VCM.
  4. What capacity exists for Commonwealth intervention to control occupational safety and to provide counselling for Australian workers whose wives may experience excessive foetal loss or genetic abnormality as a result of exposure to VCM.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Approximately 300, working in plants located in New South Wales and Victoria.
  3. The Vinyl Chloride Sub-committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council whose membership includes representatives of trade unions, employers and health authorities discussed this material at its meeting in May 1976. The Sub-committee is awaiting a report from a recent conference held in Washington at which the matter of the genetic risks associated with exposure to vinyl chloride monomer was discussed. The National Health and Medical Research Council has issued a statement on the general issue of health risks associated’ with vinyl chloride industry and stressed the need for medical examinations of VCM workers and joint consultation between management and trade unions on matters affecting their health.
  4. Responsibility for occupational safety and health conselling of the workers involved rests with the States.

Teaching Hospitals (Question No. 875)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister read a recent Medical Journal article on ‘Hospital Staffing and Hospital Costs’ indicating that costs per bed per day are higher in teaching hospitals than non-teaching hospitals, and that one major factor accounting for this is research undertaken in teaching hospitals.
  2. Is it part of the agreement for the sharing of hospital costs between the Commonwealth and State governments that research of an informal or unorganised nature such as is referred to in the article should be paid for at Commonwealth expense.
  3. What steps are being taken to examine the extent of expenditure due to research in teaching hospitals and to contain these costs.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The honourable senator will be aware that the Medibank hospital agreements between the Commonwealth and State governments have been declared invalid by the Commonwealth and that negotiations are presently proceeding for the drawing up of new Medibank hospital agreements to be effective from 1 October 1 976.

Under the new agreements, it is proposed that the Commonwealth will pay to the respective States an amount equal to 50 per cent of the net operating costs of all the recognised hospitals in the State based on the agreed budgets of those hospitals or the aggregate of the amounts paid by the State to or rar the recognised hospitals in the State as its share of the net operating costs of those hospitals, whichever is the less.

The new agreements will provide for the establishment of State standing committees- an innovation aimed at putting the lid on the open-ended nature of the previous cost-sharing arrangements.

The net operating costs to be shared are to be based on annual budgets and variations thereto formulated by the State standing committees, which are to consist of Commonwealth and State officers, and approved jointly by myself and the respective State Health Minister.

In carrying out their function, the State standing committees will endeavour to apply principles aimed at achieving operating economies in recognised hospitals and central services consistent with maintaing or achieving an acceptably high standard of health care.

The honourable senator will agree, being himself a medical practitioner, that research carried out in our teaching hospitals is vital in the maintenance of high standards of health care. Costs incurred in research projects associated with patient care are acceptable as forming pan of net operating costs for cost-sharing purposes.

The costs of research in teaching hospitals are only one of the components in the relatively higher costs of teaching hospitals as reported in the article in the Medical Journal More significant are the increasing sophistication of medicine leading to greater numbers of resident staff, who are to some extent still undergoing postgraduate training, increased number of specialists, greater capital and maintenance costs of sophisticated apparatus, increasing expectations of patients, and substantial increases in salary rates as compared with general community experience. Research into methods and techniques of diagnosis and treatment and therefore related directly to patient care may be inseparable from such care. In addition, the benefits of research and postgraudate teaching will flow over to all patient care, no matter where it takes place.

Nevertheless factors such as these will be examined by the State standing committees.

Private Health Funds, Western Australia (Question No. 981)

Senator Coleman:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the names and professional qualifications of the persons who are the members of the governing boards of the private health funds in Western Australia.
  2. Under what laws, State or Commonwealth, are the private funds in Western Australia incorporated.
  3. What provision does any State, or Commonwealth law, or ‘.he rules of each private health fund, have for (a) the election of the board of management by contributors to the Fund, and (b) the publication of annual balance sheets of the Funds.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. (i) The Hospital Benefit Fund of Western Australia Incorporated (HBF)- A. K. Atkins; L. H. Brown; J. D. Clarkson (Chairman); D. M. Clement; J. B. Craig; V. F. Driscoll; S. H. S. Gill; M. A. Jahn; J. B. Jukes; C. A. Knuckey; R. J. Marshall; H. R. Smith; J. S. Trethowan.

The organisation does not maintain records relating to the qualifications of its members of the Board of Management.

  1. Friendly Societies Health Services (FSHS)-R Bleakly (President); R. West (Vice President); J. P. Gabbedy; B. Tucker; N. Krepp; W. J. Bleakly; J. Killoway H. C. Lawson, F.A.S.A.; N. H. Reed; J. W. Wall; C. A. Jones.
  2. Government Employees’ Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund Incorporated (Government Employees’)- S. D. Bishop (Chairman) F.A.S.A., M.C.I.T., M.A.C.S.; F. C. Collins (Deputy Chairman); B. Hunt; M. St John Kennedy; H. E. Gregory; F. R. Lindsey A.P.T.C., A.R.A.C.I.
  3. Goldfields Medical Fund (Incorporated) (Goldfields)-K. R. R. Turner (Chairman); A. B. Eaton; F. R. Jarvis; H. J. Ware; H. R. Close; W. Woods; H. F. Hewitt; A. J. Barwich; P. C. Brown; J. Forrest; H. J. O’Brien, F.A.S.A.; R. J. Heath F.A.S.A.; A. Thomas.

Unless otherwise stated, the qualifications of the members listed above in respect of (ii), (iii), and (iv) are not known.

  1. HBF, Government Employees’, and Goldfields are incorporated under the Western Australian Associations Incorporation Act. The FSHS is a registered Friendly Society under the Friendly Societies Act.
  2. Commonwealth Law. Part (a)- There is no provision under Commonwealth law in respect of health benefits organisations registered under the National Health Act relating to the election of members to the boards of management.

Part (b)-Section 76 (2) of the National Health Act provides that registered health benefits organisations shall furnish financial accounts and statements to the Permanent Head (of the Department of Health) at the end of each financial year. This information is then consolidated into a report to the Minister under section 76A (1) of the Act. The Minister is then required in accordance with section 76A (4) of the Act to lay each report before each House of Parliament.

State Law. Part (a)- There is no requirement under State law dealing with the election of members to the boards of management of registered benefits organisations.

Part (b)-The Friendly Societies Act requires friendly society organisations to furnish financial accounts once every year to the Registrar of Friendly Societies.

The Western Australian Associations Incorporation Act has no requirement for the submission of annual accounts and statements.

Organisations ‘Rules

Pan (a)

  1. The Hospital Benefit Fund of Western Australia Incorporated- There is no provision for election of the board of management by contributors.
  2. Friendly Societies Health Services- The Committee of Management consists of one representative from each affiliated society, elected at the annual general meeting by representatives of the affiliated societies each of which has 4 representatives.
  3. Government Employees’ Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund Incorporated- The Board of Directors consists of 6 financial members elected by the members of the Fund. Directors are elected by a ballot of members present at the annual general meeting and are proposed and seconded by financial members of the Fund.
  4. Goldfields Medical Fund (Incorporated)- The Committee of Management, which consists of 3 representatives of each of the Boulder United Friendly Societies and the Kalgoorlie United Friendly Societies Association, one representative from each of the Australian Workers Union, Boilermakers Society, Carpenters and Joiners Union, Engine Drivers and Firemens Union, Mines Supervisors Association, Plumbers and Sheet Metal Workers Union, the Chamber of Mines of Western Australia (Inc.), and 2 members of the Coolgardie Medical Fund, and one contributors’ representative of the Goldfields Medical Fund, are elected at a special meeting following the annual general meeting by the respective bodies referred to above. All persons so elected must be contributors to the Fund.

Pan (b

  1. The Hospital Benefit Fund of Western Australia Incorporated- There is no provisjon for publication of annual balance sheets. Its annual balance sheet nevertheless is published.
  2. Friendly Societies Health Services- Rules provide to the effect that the last annual balance sheet shall be available at the registered office at all times on request.
  3. Government Employees’ Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund Incorporated-The organisation’s rules provide for the preparation of a balance sheet and submission of an auditor’s report to the Board of Directors at the annual general meeting. In practice, a copy of the balance sheet is available to any member on request.
  4. Goldfields Medical Fund (Incorporated)- The rules provide that a copy of the last annual balance sheet shall be available at all times at the registered office of the Fund.

Census Returns (Question No. 1008)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Are officers of the Bureau of Statistics processing the census returns taken earlier this year in relation to a population count. If so, what progress has been made.

Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Officers of the Australian Bureau of Statistics are in the final stages of processing returns from the 1976 Census of Population and Housing to produce preliminary statistics on population and dwellings in Australia.
  2. Population and dwelling totals for all local government areas in South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, Northern Territory (and Queensland) have already been released in separate State summaries. New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory totals are expected to be released before the end of November 1 976.
  3. Totals for Statistical Divisions are expected to become available in November 1976. Final totals for all States and Australia will be available by December 1976.
  4. Summary data for a limited number of characteristics of the population will become available in February 1977 and will be published in June 1977.
  5. Processing of main data will commence in Sydney in July 1977.

Stomach Cancer (Question No. 1087)

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware of a report published in 1966 in Japan which discusses the diminution of stomach cancer in that country by the intake of milk and dairy products. If so, has any follow-up research been done in Australia to expand on those findings.
  2. 2 ) In view of the state of the dairy industry in Australia at the present time, will the Minister have his Department undertake an assessment of whether milk and dariy products have the properties suggested in this report, and publicise any favourable findings.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. No research on this subject appears to have been carried out in Australia.
  2. The reports from Japan that milk may give some protection against stomach cancer do not appear to have been confirmed in any other countries. It may be that in Japan, where stomach cancer is particuarly common, the disease has causes different from those in other countries. The disease is also rapidly becoming less common in Australia. In these circumstances, there is not sufficient justification to warrant the transfer of scarce resources from research projects of higher priority and it is not intended that a special study of the matter be made in this country at this stage.

Paramedical Services (Question No. 1125)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the requirements for a State to obtain assistance for paramedical services for aged persons within their own homes under the States Grants (Paramedical Services) Act.
  2. What funds were received by each State under the States Grants (Paramedical Services) Act in 1975-76.
  3. Do any States receive grants for paramedical services for aged persons under health programs other than that referred to in (1). If so, (a) which States are involved, (b) what did each State receive for these projects in 1 975-76, (c) what is each State expected to receive in 1976-77, and (d) under what program were the grants obtained.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The States Grants (Paramedical Services) Act defines a participating State as one which has given notice to the Commonwealth that it intends to seek financial assistance under the Act. Only 3 States- Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania- have given such notice. Where a participating State expends moneys in connection with a paramedical service scheme, approved by the Commonwealth Minister for Health, there is payable to the State an amount equal to one half of the amount so expended.
  2. Victoria $132,250; South Australia $167,492; Tasmania $10,258.
  3. Yes. Grants for community-based services, which encompass paramedical services to aged persons, are made to all States under the Community Health Program.

Total State expenditures of Commonwealth funds provided under the Community Health Program in 1975-76 were:

Total allocations of Community Health Program funds to the States for 1976-77 are:

Community Health Program grants cover a wide range of project categories, and paramedical services for aged persons are generally provided from within a range of coordinated services available to each local community or region as a whole. It is therefore impracticable to determine what amounts from within the abovementioned figures are specifically related to paramedical services for aged persons.

Northern Territory: Bushfires (Question No. 1148)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:

What steps are being taken to allocate funds to the Department of the Northern Territory so as to enable the department to give financial assistance to victims of bushfires in the Northern Territory.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

No funds are provided to the department for bushfire relief nor have any requests for special financial assistance for damage or loss resulting from bushfires in the Northern Territory been received by either my department or myself.

Cedar Bay Police Raid (Question No. 1149)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Has the Prime Minister been in contact with the Queensland Premier, the Queensland Treasurer, the Queensland Minister for Police or the Queensland Police Commissioner concerning the recent raid by Commonwealth and State officers at Cedar Bay, on any occasion since the raid took place on 29 August 1976. If so, what are the details:

Senator Withers:
LP

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

No.

Tax Reform (Question No. 1220)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice:

What further tax reforms affecting individuals and industry is the Government going to introduce as part of the New Federalism policy.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Federalism policy is concerned with the equitable distribution of powers and functions between the three areas of government and the development of financial arrangements consistent with that distribution. Taxation reform is part of the Government’s economic policy and is kept under continuous review as a matter of course by the Treasurer.

Cocos Malay Population (Question No. 1225)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many (a) males 18 years of age and over, (b) females 18 years of age and over, and (c) persons under 18 years of age, of Cocos Malay origin have migrated to Australia from the Cocos (Keeling) Islands since November 1975.
  2. What was the total population of Cocos Malay people, in the categories of ages set out in part ( 1 ), living in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands at November 1 975.
  3. 3 ) What is the population of Cocos Malay people, within the same categories of ages, living in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands at September 1976.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The answer is as follows:

  1. Numbers from 1 December 1975 to 30 September 1976 were: (a) 35; (b) 28; (c) 36.
  2. At 30 November 1975 population was: (a) 162; (b) 164; (c) 177.
  3. At 30 September 1976 population was: (a) 127; (b) 138; (c) 138

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Staff Ceilings (Question No. 1246)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What is the projected staff ceiling for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet as at 30 June 1977.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

As I said in my answer to Question No. 218 on 18 August 1976 (House of Representatives, Hansard pp. 332-337), it is not the practice to publish the individual staff ceilings set for each department.

Public Service: Long Service Leave

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 14 September 1976 (Hansard page 607) Senator Ryan asked me a question without notice concerning those employees of the Commonwealth Public Service working less than normal public service hours who are not entitled to long service leave. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Public Service Board has advised me that employees working less than normal public service hours currently have no eligibility for long service leave because section 5 (b) of the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act 1943 provides that the Act does not apply to part-time employees.

On 21 October 1976 the Long Service Leave (Government Employees) Bill 1 976 was introduced into the House of Representatives to implement a number of improvements in the long service leave conditions of Commonwealth staff (Hansard, House of Representatives, page 2104). A significant provision in the Bill is the extension of long service leave to part-time employees.

Duty Free Shops at Airports

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 5 October 1976, Senator Missen asked the following question:

Is the Minister aware that duty free shops at Australian airports stock only a few brands of cigarettes, all of which have extremely high tar content? In view of the Government’s consistent policy of discouraging the promotion of tobacco sales because of tobacco’s association with lung cancer, will the Minister take steps to see that the duty free shops at least stock competing popular brands of cigarettes which have an acknowledged low tar content?

I replied:

  1. . tam unaware myself, and lam not sure whether my colleague in another place is aware, that duty free shops at airports stock only those cigarettes with a high tar content. I shall ask my colleague to have an inquiry made. Should it in fact reveal that to be true, I will ask my colleague whether he will happily refer the matter to the Minister for Health so that the steps as indicated can be taken.

I now have the required information which is as follows:

The duty free shops are operated under authorities issued under the Airports (Business Concessions) Act after the calling of public tenders. The Department of Transport has not the contractual right to require the duty free concessionaires to stock a certain brand of cigarettes. It does ask the concessionaires, however, to carry a representative selection. Our inquiries reveal that at each of the two largest airports, Sydney and Melbourne, among the cigarettes being merchandised by the concessionaire are at least 7-10 brands which are reputed to have a low tar content.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 9 November 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19761109_senate_30_s70/>.