Senate
17 November 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2019

PETITIONS

Child Care Services

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 30 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain parents and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That we, the undersigned, declare that we are concerned at the increasingly alarming child care situation, where only one place is available for every 10 pre-school children and where, in New South Wales, only 184 out of the 891 childcare centres in existence offer long day care for the children of working mothers, despite the changing socio-economic conditions in Australia and the increased numbers of working mothers.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you make funds available urgently for long day care centres and that all funds allocated for child care be directed only to those child-care centres willing to provide long day care, preschool and after-school care, holiday care and emergency day care for children.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 163 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 hearings 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 needs as well as traditional claims lodged by Aborigines.

The restoration of all powers vested in Land Councils and the Land Commissioner in the 1973 Land Rights Bill.

A provision that any Government decision to override 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.

Child Care Services

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 3 1 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain parents and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That we, the undersigned, declare that we are concerned at the increasingly alarming child care situation, where only one place is available for every 10 pre-school children and where, in New South Wales, only 184 out of the 891 childcare centres in existence offer long-day care for the children of working mothers, despite the changing socio-economic conditions in Australia and the increased numbers of working mothers.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you make funds available urgently for long day care centres and that all funds allocated for child care be directed only to those child-care centres willing to provide long day care, preschool and after-school care, holiday care ana emergency day care for children.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 418 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 ahould:

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 the 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 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.

d ) 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 override Aboriginal objections to mining on the basis of national interest itself be 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 and read.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition from 22 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 heating 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 ensure:

The removal of all powers to pass Land Rights Legislation from the 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 of 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 override 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.

Child Care Services

Senator RYAN:
ACT

-I present the following pet ition from 1 1 3 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the Government’s Child Care Policy should be immediately clarified and announced to ensure continuity of programmes and allow effective forward planning.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 2 1 9 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 the 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 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 of 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 Land Councils and the Land Commissioner in the 1975 Land Rights Bill.

A provision that any Government decision to override Aboriginal objections to mining on the basis of national interest itself be 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 KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 290 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 numbly 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 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 of 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 override 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 and read.

Release of Prisoner from Soviet Gaol

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 131 citizens of Australia:

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

Having learned of the unjust and harsh incarceration in Vladimir prison by the Soviet Authorities of a Prisoner of Conscience of Latvian nationality Gunars Rode, we the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully petition the Australian Senate and through it the Australian Government to use all its diplomatic resources and influence to secure the release of the said Prisoner of Conscience in order that he may enjoy the Human Rights as set out in the United Nations Charter, and as agreed to by all signatories of the European Security and Co-operation Conference in Helsinki.

This petition is submitted because great anxiety is felt for Gunars Rode, as it is known that to obtain the very minimum of the abovementioned Human Rights, in March of this year he commenced a hunger strike and his fate since then is unknown.

We further feel great concern for the numerous Prisoners of Conscience of many nationalities kept in Soviet prisons, labour camps and so-called mental institutions and pray for their wellbeing and release.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Child Care Services

To the Honourable President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain parents and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That we, the undersigned, declare that we are concerned at the increasingly alarming child care situation, where only one place is available for every ten pre-school children and where, in NSW, only 184 out of the 89 1 child care centres in existence offer long day care for the children of working mothers, despite the changing socio-economic conditions in Australia and the increased numbers of working mothers.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you make funds available urgently for long day care centres and that all funds allocated for child care be directed only to those child care centres willing to provide long day care pre-school and after-school care, holiday care and emergency day care for children.

And your petitioners as in d uty bound will ever pray. by Senator Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Australian Schools Commission

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:

  1. 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.
  2. In no way alter the present role and administrative functions of the Australian Schools Commission.
  3. Encourage the Australian Schools Commission to develop and implement without restrictions, a philosophy of educational funding independent of Government pressures.
  4. 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. by Senator Wriedt.

Petition received.

Petrol Price Equalisation Scheme

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Commonwealth Government restore the Petrol Price Equalisation Scheme immediately for the benefit of those people who live away from the seaboard.

Your petitioners believe that the matter is urgent.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (2 petitions).

Petitions received.

Pensions

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

That 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 means test on pensions causes undue hardship to them.

We call on the Government to immediately abolish the means 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 Collard.

Petition received.

Social Security Matters

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

That distress is being caused to social security recipients by the delay in adjusting pensions to the Consumer Price Index months after goods and services have risen and that many medications, formerly a pharmaceutical benefit, must now be paid for.

In addition, State Housing Authority waiting lists for low rental dwellings for pensioners become never less and funeral costs increase ever greater.

Your petitioners call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

Adjust social security payments instantly and automatically on announcement of increases in the quarterly Consumer Price Index.

Restore pharmaceutical benefits deleted from the free list.

The States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974, eroded by inflation, be updated and increased to overcome the backlog.

The funeral benefit be updated to 60 per cent of a reasonable funeral cost. This benefit when introduced in 1943 at 200 shillings ($20.00) was seven times the pension at that time of 27 shillings ($2.70) per week or more than twice the basic wage of 97 shillings ($9.70).

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

Petition received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

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:

  1. 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.
  2. Amend the Bill to ensure:

    1. 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.
    2. The control of Aborigines of all roads passing through Aboriginal lands.
    3. The restoration of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner’s powers to hear claims based on needs as well as traditional claims lodged by Aborigines.
    4. The restoration of all powers vested in Land Councils and the Land Commissioner in the 1975 Land Rights Bill.
    5. A provision that any Government decision to override Aboriginal objections to mining on the basis of national interest be itself reviewed by both Houses of Parliament.
    6. A provision that land-owning groups of Aborigines may apply to form separate trusts if they wish.
    7. 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 Young and Senator Jessop.

Petitions received.

page 2022

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE BLOOD SPORTS

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. I refer the Minister to a question asked by him on 23 October 1973 when in Opposition. For the sake of clarity, the question was No. 476. The question called on the then Federal Government to ban the practice of blood sports, especially the destruction of marine species not used for human consumption. I ask the Minister: Does the question represent the philosophy of the present Government on conservation? If so, what action has this Government taken to implement this policy, in particular with respect to the slaughter of such game fish, as sail fish, marlin and barracuda?

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

– If I were in whimsical vein, I would say that federalism aims to ban the main blood sport in Australia, and indeed intends to do so. I well recall the question that I asked. It was raised by me as a backbench senator on the basis of my belief that bull fighting and any other sports that kill wildlife unnecessarily are repulsive and ought to be prevented. I have always believed that big game fishing for marlin, shark and other such fish is a particularly repulsive form of sport. That is a personal view; I have no idea at all what my colleagues’ views are in this regard. I do not know whether the Government has expressed a view, but I will bring the question to the attention of my colleague, the

Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development.

Senator KEEFFE:

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

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Keeffe.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I ask the Minister briefly whether he can obtain the official Government attitude on the matter.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I will seek a statement of such an attitude.

page 2023

QUESTION

TELEPHONE INTERPRETER SERVICE

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the new telephone service which has been established by the Department of Social Security for migrants with language difficulties. I commend the Department on this new initiative to help migrants. But in view of an alleged statement by a departmental spokesman that ‘the Department would be delighted if migrants with language difficulties used this service more often’, I ask the Minister: First, how will migrants who do not speak or read English find out about this new service; second, will the Minister therefore arrange for the new service to be widely and continually publicised through the ethnic Press, ethnic radio and in all Federal, State and local government offices such as Commonwealth Employment Service offices and post offices?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– The Department of Social Security understands that the telephone interpreter service is of great benefit to migrants. We have been endeavouring to publicise in every way possible the service which is provided. I will take note of the suggestions with regard to the ethnic Press and ethnic radio. I point out that there are placards and leaflets with regard to the telephone interpreter service in all government offices, in trams and in other public places. I hope that this service is becoming more widely known. In most States I believe that it is now listed among the emergency telephone numbers in telephone directories. In a variety of ways I believe that knowledge of this service is becoming more widely disseminated. I will take note of what was suggested by the honourable senator.

page 2023

QUESTION

SENATE INFORMATION BOOKLET

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I desire to ask a question of you, Mr President. I hope that this question does not cause the trouble that the only other question I have asked you did. I ask: Has there been a reprint of many thousands of copies of the document entitled The Senate- An

Introduction, which is either given or sold to visitors to Parliament House? Who was responsible for the wording of this document? As the question of the right of the Senate to reject a money Bill is a legal question that has not been considered by a court, and as the Government and the Opposition have different views on this question, is not a partisan attitude displayed by this document which states at page 3:

The Senate may reject or defer any proposed law including a money Bill.

It also states:

While the Senate’s powers of amendment of money Bills are subject to certain restrictions, it may nevertheless veto a money Bill or any other Bill.

I ask: Is this fair to both sides in the House?

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall consider your question, Senator Cavanagh, and reply to you later.

page 2023

QUESTION

POLLEN COUNTS

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Science. Does the Bureau of Meteorology or any other agency within the Minister’s departmental control undertake pollen counts or in other ways analyse the quantity of allergy-producing material in the atmosphere? If so, will the Minister investigate the possibility of publicising daily information of pollen levels in the same way as weather reports during the spring and early summer for the benefit of the millions of asthma and hayfever sufferers?

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

-The Bureau of Meteorology has been associated with studies of atmospheric aerosols, including those associated with industrial pollution and those causing medical conditions. I understand that from time to time Bureau officers have collaborated with members of the medical profession in studying the relationship between weather and conditions causing asthma. I also understand that in these studies observations have been made of atmospheric aerosols such as pollen which are likely to be associated with asthma. To the best of my knowledge, the Bureau does not provide any specialised warning service on weather conditions which are likely to produce an increase in the incidence of asthma in the community, but I understand that some newspapers publish, along with the weather reports, the pollen counts in some areas. If there is any further information I can give to the honourable senator, I will do so.

page 2023

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

-Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware that in less than 24 hours the United Nations will vote on a resolution reaffirming strong support for

East Timorese self-determination? In view of reports that the Australian delegation at the UN is to abstain from speaking and voting on this resolution, can the Minister state clearly Australia’s position in regard to East Timorese self-determination?

Senator WITHERS:
Minister for Administrative Services · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I thought Australia’s view was well known, as I have put it forth in this place a number of times. I will obtain for the honourable senator information as to whether Australia will be voting- I think the vote will be on Friday of this week- yes or no, or abstaining.

page 2024

QUESTION

EYE DISEASES AMONG ABORIGINES

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I applaud the Minister for Health for his foresight in setting up a mobile hospital staffed by a full surgical team and equipped with a sterile operating theatre on the Amata reserve in South Australia for the sole purpose of treating and containing the rampant spread of eye disease among the Aboriginal people of that area. In view of the undoubted success of this scheme, can the Minister give an assurance that further such units will be set up to deal with this disease, which is peculiar to my race, in all other remote areas of Australia where the density of Aboriginal population warrants it?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The Minister for Health has made public statements with regard to the team that was mentioned by Senator Bonner in his question. The Government is hopeful that the setting up of the mobile hospital at Amata in South Australia to enable a full surgical team to treat eye disease among Aborigines will be successful. It is also hoped that it will be feasible to make similar arrangements for other remote communities where the special needs cannot be met from existing services and facilities. I will ask the Minister for Health to give attention to Senator Bonner’s question and I will see whether there is further information which I can obtain.

page 2024

QUESTION

RADIO COMMUNICATION WITH EAST TIMOR

Senator GEORGES:

-My question, which concerns East Timor, is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Can the Minister confirm reports of a Cabinet decision to stop the Australian Telecommunications Commission’s Northern Territory outback radio receiving messages from and forwarding messages to East Timor? In view of the Government’s public opposition to the Indonesian actions, how can it explain this deliberate compliance with

Indonesia’s demands? Is the Government aware that this action prevents not only Australians but also the international community within Australia from receiving information from East Timor? Is the Government prepared to reverse its decision and enable the suffering of the East Timorese under Indonesian aggression to be heard of and so to be known in Australia?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The question is one relating to the Postal and Telecommunications Department in its -

Senator Georges:

– I would like to raise a point of order, Mr President. This is a matter of foreign policy. More than that, it is a matter of the attitude of the Australian Government and of the Prime Minister in particular. Previously all such questions have been addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and it is in his area of concern that I direct my question.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I suggest that the honourable senator put his question on notice.

page 2024

QUESTION

URANIUM

Senator YOUNG:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources. I ask him whether he has seen Press reports that the South Australian Premier, Mr Dunstan, is keen to have a uranium enrichment plant established at Redcliff in South Australia. Has Mr Dunstan had any discussions with the Federal Government on the possible establishment of a uranium enrichment plant in South Australia? If such a proposal were to be undertaken, would the Federal Government be involved in a feasibility study or any such type of study in any way?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-My attention has not been drawn to recent reports concerning the establishment of a uranium enrichment plant at Redcliff in South Australia, but in June of this year the matter did receive some Press comment. In July of this year my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for National Resources issued a statement which, in part said:

The study being undertaken by the South Australian Government of the feasibility of a uranium enrichment industry being established in the State is quite consistent with the Commonwealth ‘s view that the feasibility of uranium enrichment should be fully explored.

The South Australian Government has sought and received technical advice from the Atomic Energy Commission.

The contact should continue so that the Commonwealth can remain fully informed of progress of the State Government ‘s study.

In view of its constiutional powers and its responsibilities under the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, any question relating to the establishment of uranium enrichment plants in Australia is a matter for the Commonwealth Government. 1 understand that the South Australian Government has now completed a preliminary study of a uranium enrichment plant at Redcliff. The Commonwealth welcomes such studies, as feasibility of an investment of this magnitude needs to be tested thoroughly.

page 2025

QUESTION

SYDNEY AIRPORT

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a statement by Sir Reginald Ansett, the Managing Director of Ansett Airlines of Australia, that Mascot Airport is inadequate as an overseas terminal airport and that civil air transport, both overseas and domestic, will be seriously disadvantaged by these inadequacies? In view of the short term smash and grab tactics that were used by the Liberal and National Country Parties, when in Opposition, in their climb to power in inflaming public opinion against the construction of a satellite airport for Sydney at some other site -

Senator Withers:

– Galston.

Senator O’BYRNE:

-Such as Galston; what does the Government now intend to do about the obvious and growing deficiences at Mascot Airport?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Unlike the Whitlam Federal Government which for 3 years talked and did nothing, and therefore brought about the condition which Sir Reginald Ansett is now describing, the Prime Minister, as the honourable senator should know, has acted to have discussions with the New South Wales Government in order that a decision can be made between the 2 governments to determine a site for a new airport. The Whitlam Government, of course, attempted to thrust an airport on the people of Galston with, of course, disastrous results. I repeat that the situation that Sir Reginald Ansett has outlined was grossly aggravated by 3 years of lack of any action at all by the Federal Labor Party.

page 2025

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR STUDENTS

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security concerning the payment of unemployment benefits to people leaving universities. My question relates particularly to the question asked on the subject yesterday which dealt with the Australian National University. I ask the Minister: What is the situation with respect to a person who has not completed a course of study but who does not intend to resume full time studies? As the last day for enrolment at the Australian National University this year will be 24 December, can the Minister say whether in fact such people will be eligible for the unemployment benefit from 31 December and not from 1 February 1977 as has reportedly been suggested in a notice distributed by the Department of Social Security?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The question asked by the honourable senator is very similar to that asked yesterday by Senator Grimes. In case there is any matter which requires clarification I shall restate that a university student who has not completed a course of study and who states that he does not intend to resume his studies in the following year may be eligible for the unemployment benefit from the time at which he is accepted as not continuing as a student. That condition is regarded as being satisfied if the student has not re-enrolled by the time the acceptance date for re-enrolment has passed. In the case of students leaving the Australian National University without having completed their courses in 1 976, the last date for re-enrolment will be 24 December this year, as was indicated yesterday by Senator Grimes. If people in that category have been informed by the Department of Social Security that they will not be eligible for the unemployment benefit until 1 February 1977, that information is not accurate. The staff at regional offices of the Department of Social Security were informed on 10 November of the correct situation. The date of 1 February has no application to university students, and there should be no misunderstanding about that.

I hope that in the course of answering questions over recent days I have made it clear that graduates who have completed their courses are eligible for the unemployment benefit 7 days after they have made application for it. Those university students who have not completed courses but who have not re-enrolled are eligible, in the same way as is any other person, after the date of re-enrolment has passed, provided that they have satisfied work tests and means tests.

Senator Georges:

– If they are eligible on the date that you mentioned, is that payment retrospective right back to the time they left university?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– No. It applies from the date on which the re-enrolments close. In the case of the Australian National University, that date is 24 December, as I understand it. They may then make application to receive the unemployment benefit.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I rise to order, Mr President. I think what is being done is dastardly. That same question was -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! What is the point of order?

Senator Withers:

– Wait a minute. I take a point of order on that. I am not having the word dastardly ‘ thrown around.

Senator Button:

– That is a gentle word.

Senator Withers:

– What is ‘dastardly’? Perhaps I ought to warn Senator Cavanagh. I hope he is not talking about a Minister’s reply or a question that has been asked as being dastardly.

Senator Button:

– You did not let him finish taking his point of order.

Senator Withers:

– Well, one can read his mind.

The PRESIDENT:

– What is your point of order, Senator Cavanagh?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Let me say that I used the word ‘dastardly’ to refer to what is happening; it was not related to any person. A similar question to that asked by Senator Knight was asked yesterday by Senator Grimes. The Minister did not give a reply. She did not know the answer. She now has a reply to Senator Grimes ‘s question but rather than give it to the senator who initiated the question she has arranged for someone on the Government side to get the information.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You are not raising a point of order. Ministers may reply to questions in their own way. The matter which Senator Cavanagh has raised is not a point of order.

page 2026

QUESTION

REPORT ON URANIUM

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is the

Minister for Administrative Services able to say how many copies of the Fox Royal Commission’s first report on uranium have been printed by the Australian Government Publishing Service? Are copies available for purchase by interested members of the public at government publication offices? If so, what is the sale price of each copy? How serious is the Government in its stated intention of encouraging informed public debate on this issue?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-As to the last question, the Government is quite serious. I am even prepared to make some Government time available before the Senate rises so that we can have a debate in this place. Whether the debate from some parts of this chamber will be really informed, I suppose, is a matter we have yet to find out. I do not carry in my head the details sought in the other questions but I hope to have them before question time is over.

page 2026

QUESTION

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs who is also the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Women’s Affairs. I refer to the report in the Australian of 15 November 1976 which alleges that women are being discriminated against in their dealings with banks, especially by the imposition of discriminatory interest rates on loans. Does the Minister intend to inquire into this matter in any way?

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

– I did not see the article to which Senator Missen referred. I am grateful that he has drawn my attention to it. I shall certainly have the matter referred to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs whom I represent in this chamber.

page 2026

QUESTION

COMMUNITY YOUTH SUPPORT SCHEME

Senator RYAN:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It refers to a Press release issued by the Minister on 2 1 October on the community youth support scheme, whereby unemployed youth will be paid up to $6 per week to work on what was described as voluntary work programs. The statement said that the scheme would operate from the first of this month. How many local committees, as described in the release, have been set up to run such programs? How many young people have been employed for up to $6 a week? Finally can the Minister explain to the chamber why he expects unemployed youth genuinely seeking employment to accept $6 per week to work on projects such as child care programs and recycling programs, which were mentioned in the release, when the Government could offer such work at award wages for the unemployed?

Senator DURACK:
LP

- Senator Ryan asks a question in considerable detail on a matter within the province of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, whom I represent. This information is not available to me. I do not think she would expect me to have it. I shall pass the question on to the Minister for a more detailed answer.

page 2026

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR REFUGEES

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to a question asked by Senator Georges on 11 November 1976 concerning East Timor refugees. Is the Minister in a position to state whether the Government will assist East Timorese refugees now living in Portugal to come to Australia? Will the Government undertake to provide some of the $250,000 which was promised to the discredited Indonesian Red Cross to be diverted to assist East Timor refugees in Portugal? Will special priority be given to this most necessary humanitarian task?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I will seek that information from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

page 2027

QUESTION

STRIKES: ESSENTIAL SERVICES LEGISLATION

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to the recent report that the Premier of Victoria is considering the introduction of legislation to define essential industrial areas of State interest for the purpose of preventing unnecessary industrial disruption. Is the Minister aware of the proposal? Is the Minister able to say whether the legislation will include a requirement that compulsory secret ballots must be held before a strike involving such areas is legal? Has the Federal Government adequate authority to maintain the operation of services that are essential to Australia? Can the Minister say whether the Federal Government will consider declaring areas of national importance in respect of which legislation similar to that contemplated in Victoria could be introduced?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The steps which have been taken by the Victorian Government and other State governments to control industrial problems arising in those States are certainly being closely followed by this Government. Should it become apparent that supporting measures in the Federal jurisdiction are required to complement the State measures the Government will consider taking appropriate steps.

page 2027

QUESTION

REPORT ON BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION

Senator BUTTON:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Administrative Services and as a result of the conjunction of fine minds in geographical proximity it closely relates to the question asked by Senator Douglas McClelland a moment ago. I ask: How many copies of the report of the inquiry into broadcasting and television have been printed?

Senator Withers:

-Is that the Green Report?

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes. Are copies available at government publication offices for purchase by interested members of the public? If so, at what price? How serious is this Government in its stated intention of encouraging informed public debate on the issues in the Green Report?

Senator Wright:

– We are going to have a record cut for you.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I do not know whether it will be a record or a tape. But that might lead me into other areas. I will ascertain whether I can get that information before the end of question time.

page 2027

QUESTION

VOCATIONAL TRAINING FOR ABORIGINES

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister for Education about vocational training for Aborigines in the Northern Territory. As a preamble to the question I would like to say that I believe that with the growing awareness of the need to have vocational training for Aborigines in the Northern Territory there appears to be some vying and possible overlapping of interest within government departments in the Northern Territory. I ask: Is the Minister able to make a statement on the negotiations between the relevant government departments concerning the future of vocational training for Aborigines in the Northern Territory?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– This matter has been exercising my attention for many months. Discussions have taken place on a number of occasions at ministerial level between me, my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and at officer level, to see what facilities we can provide to enable better vocational training for Aborigines within the schools and colleges, but even more importantly, how we can arrange a link between the community outside and the schools and colleges so that we can orient the Aboriginal students from the schools or the colleges to a meaningful job. One of the sad facts can be demonstrated in this way: In Australia at the moment more than 1 3 000 Aborigines are receiving secondary grants under ABSEG- the Aboriginal Secondary Education Grants scheme- out of a total recognised population of no more than 150 000 Aborigines. Although, on the one hand, that is good news, on the other hand the fact is that of those 13 000 Aborigines too low a percentage is going into meaningful employment. Let me make it clear that the Government recognises the right of choice of all Aborigines either to make a move towards their own traditional way of life or towards our way of life. The significant fact is that there is no real orientation which works effectively. For those honourable senators who are interested the report of Professor Betty Watts is worthwhile reading. The 3 Ministers concerned are still having discussions. We hope that, within the weeks immediately ahead, we will be able to come up with a worthwhile plan for vocational training and orientation.

page 2028

QUESTION

RHODESIAN IMMIGRANTS

Senator SIBRAA:

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Are reports accurate that the Minister has refused to permit the department to participate in the forthcoming Austcare and Australian Council for Overseas Aid Conference on the problems associated with Rhodesian immigration to Australia? Is it a fact that the department originally agreed to send the First Assistant Secretary with a research paper to be delivered at the conference? What are the reasons for the Government’s change in attitude?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not aware of the matters that have been raised by the honourable senator. I will refer them to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for his reply.

page 2028

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS TO TASMANIA

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs: What was the amount of money allocated to Tasmania by the Federal Government this year by way of untied grants to local government? How does this compare with amounts of untied grants in previous years?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The amount of money made available to Tasmania by way of untied grants for this financial year is $4.004m. Honourable senators will recall that I tabled the Tasmanian State Grants Commission report in the Senate last week. Senator Walters asked what were the amounts of untied grants for previous years. Under the Whitlam Government in 1974-75- the first year of untied grants- Tasmania was granted $1,669,000. In the second year, which was 1975-76, Tasmania received $2,292,000 which was an increase of 37 per cent over the first year. This year the amount is $4.004m which is an increase of 75 per cent over the previous year. This year, untied grants to local government in Tasmania will be more than $4m. Those honourable senators who have seen the Tasmanian State Grants Commission report will have noted the tremendous increases in each of the municipalities throughout Tasmania as the result of the application, first, of the per capita grants, and secondly, the equalisations.

page 2028

QUESTION

PAYMENTS TO TASMANIA

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I wish to ask a question following the question that has just been asked. In view of the quite remarkable capacity of Senator Carrick to give those specific answers to a question purporting to be without notice, I ask him: Will he now also give the same figures for specific purpose payments to Tasmania for the same years and the payments under the Loan Council arrangement?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– There is no secret about the fact that I had those figures because Mr Neilson this morning sent me a personal letter setting them out. I read it this morning, noted it and did the percentage calculations. Mr Neilson did not send me information this morning regarding the specific purpose grants. I will be very happy to obtain the information and supply it to the honourable senator. If the honourable senator would like the information contained in both Mr Neilson ‘s letter and the Tasmanian Grants Commission report which highly praises what the Fraser Federal Government has done, I shall be willing to give him a copy of these also.

page 2028

QUESTION

PROBATE DUTY

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I say by way of preface that he will be aware that probate duty has been completely abolished in Queensland and abolished as between spouses in some other States. The Minister will also be aware of the provisions of the amending federal Estate Duty Bill which gives considerable relief from the incidence of federal estate duty. I am now informed that the Victorian Government proposes major changes in the Gift Duty Act and the Probate Duty Act, the effects of which will be to bring into the gift duty and probate duty field discretionary trusts and the beneficiaries thereunder who under the existing legislation are not liable for these duties. Can the Minister say whether the Government has any plans to introduce similar legislation in the federal field which would not only completely negative the concessions effected by the Federal Estate Duty Bill but also unfairly disadvantage primary producers and others who are potential beneficiaries under these discretionary trusts?

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

– That question asks me to divulge potential Government revenue policy. If I knew the policy I could not state it, but I do not know it. Once upon a time the Senate embarked upon a study of probate duty. Many of us were involved. My colleagues Senator Guilfoyle, Senator Gietzelt and I and others were involved on a committee which reached certain conclusions. It is edifying to find the States following the Commonwealth lead in these matters of enlightenment.

page 2029

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to Senator Carrick. It refers to the Green Committee’s report, one of the recommendations of which is the replacement of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board by the Broadcasting Tribunal. I ask: Is the Minister aware of widespread concern amongst a large number of parents in the community that such replacement will diminish the already inadequate surveillance over program standards, particularly insofar as they affect children? Will the Minister give an unqualified assurance that the Tribunal will not consist of representatives of the broadcasting industry, many of whom are interested only in peddling programs which at best can be described as below standard and at worst destructive so far as children are concerned?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– As I understand the situation, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is to be disbanded and its functions undertaken by a variety of other bodies. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board firstly has a responsibility for technical standards throughout Australia. My recollection is that the responsibility for technical qualities is to go to the department concerned. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board has as a second function the conducting of public inquiries into applications for or renewals of licences for broadcasting or television. When the Board is disbanded that function will go to a tribunal which is to be an independent body charged with holding public inquiries and making decisions as to the allocation of licences. The allocations therefore will be entirely non-political. As to the third function which has been devolved upon the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, it has responsibilities for that part of broadcasting and television which is not covered by the Australian Broadcasting Commission; that is, it deals with the standards of the commercial sector. Its duty is to ensure adequate and comprehensive programming within the commercial sector but not within the national sector. It has tried over the years to establish standards which the honourable senator said are queried as defective.

My understanding is that the first step contemplated by the Green committee is that a broadcasting council, or a body with a name similar to that, representing the elements of the industry, is to set to work to produce a code. I may be wrong in this and I shall refer the matter to my colleague in another place. Included in the first step is a public inquiry- an opportunity for the public to participate and to put forward its view, as Senator Harradine said. That would enable the public to put before an inquiry its views on what the standards ought to be, on what the measures of good taste ought to be and perhaps on what times ought to be allocated for children’s programs and others. My recollection is that the intention is first to invite the public to comment on the nature of the standards. Lest I am wrong in that regard, I shall invite my colleague to comment in detail.

page 2029

QUESTION

STATISTICAL RETURNS OF BUSINESSES

Senator MESSNER:

-Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of the considerable disquiet among businessmen, particularly small businessmen, at the ever-rising demand by the Bureau of Statistics for increasing numbers of statistical returns on various aspects of their businesses? Is he aware of the complaint of many businessmen that they have not readily available much of the information sought and that considerable labour is required to obtain it? Is he also aware that some State government departments are now requiring similar but not usually precisely the same information? Does he agree that the pressure of such requirements leads inevitably to a less than satisfactory standard of accuracy in the preparation of these returns which may effectively devalue the data collated by the Bureau and possibly lead to incorrect decisions based on that data?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-That is a very useful question. I take the same position as the honourable senator takes. People in business are increasingly being asked to fill in questionnaires, to provide data and to fill in forms. It is very arduous on small businesses with limited staff and with limited executive capacity. Later, at some stage in one’s affairs, when one has to rely upon the statistics which are assembled out of all that data, one has the same reservation as the honourable senator has, as to whether or not people get so frustrated that in effect they make an answer which is largely valueless. I am concerned about that problem. The Treasurer is concerned about it, too. There has to be some way of simplifying data collection so that people are put to less bother and the result is much more likely to be accurate when it is obtained.

page 2030

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF DANGEROUS TOYS

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs aware of statements by the Victorian Minister of Consumer Affairs, Mr Maclellan, which criticised the Federal Government for allowing dangerous toys into the country? Mr Maclellan said:

The Federal Government lectures us about these toys then allows them in under customs regulations.

Is the Minister aware of concern being expressed at the potentiality of many of these toys to injure and maim children? In view of these criticisms, can the Government outline the measures it will take to stop these toys from entering Australia? When will such measures be implemented?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have not any information which I can give Senator Brown on the matter. However, he raised a very important question. I am aware broadly of the problem. Quite an amount of concern has been expressed about it lately. I shall ascertain from the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs the details which the honourable senator sought.

page 2030

QUESTION

DUAL NATIONALITY

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I ask a question of Senator Withers in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister been able to get any further details on the circumstances in which some Australians of Greek origin on returning to Greece find themselves dragooned into the Greek Army?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Today I received the following note from my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs:

The Australian citizen of Greek origin referred to in the Daily Telegraph of 11 November is an Australian/Greek dual national. The person referred to was a seaman deserter who became an Australian citizen in 1976. As a Greek citizen he continued to have an obligation to do military service in Greece. The present Greek law permits those persons who became naturalised Australian citizens prior to 3 1 December 1975 to buy their way out of military service. I have been informed that the person concerned was aware of his obligations as he had been in touch with the Greek ConsulateGeneral in Sydney prior to his departure.

The Australian Embassy is not able to spring persons out of the Greek Army.

Spring’ was the word used by Senator Mulvihill in his question:

Australia is party to the 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws. Article 4 of that Convention provides that a state may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals against a state whose nationality such a person also possesses. The Australian Embassy gave what consular assistance it was able to give to the person concerned.

Persons of Greek descent who become Australian citizens through a period of residence or are born in Australia do not normally lose their claim to Greek citizenship. While resident outside Greece they are exempted from the military service obligations applicable to residents of Greece and for visits can obtain exemptions on the following basis:

That does not quite read as good English, does it?

Senator Georges:

– The honourable senator may have it redrafted. Even the contents are not correct.

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator Mulvihill is most interested in it.

Senator Georges:

– I know he is. So am I.

Senator McAuliffe:

– And Senator Mulvihill is not a Greek.

Senator WITHERS:

-Fancy Senator Georges in the Army!

Senator Georges:

– Yes, especially in the Greek Army.

Senator WITHERS:

-If it did nothing else, it would certainly frighten me. The answer reads:

While resident outside Greece they are exempt from the military service obligations applicable to residents of Greece and for visits can obtain exemptions on the following basis:

Persons born outside Greece or who left Greece legally prior to their eleventh birthday may return for a visit of up to one year.

Persons born in Greece who left legally after their eleventh birthday may return for a visit of up to three months.

You will note a stipulation in both instances of legal departure from Greece. Anyone who did not obtain sanction for departure for residence abroad does not have an entitlement to the exemptions mentioned above.

To obtain these exemptions applicants are required to provide three separate certificates, namely:

from the nearest Greek Consulate in Australia confirming residence here;

from the Australian Embassy in Athens stating that he complied with Australian residence requirements;

from the appropriate municipal authority in Greece confirming legal departure from Greece for residence abroad.

Providing that these conditions are met, extensions to both periods can be obtained by payment of an exemption fee. The terms of military service exemptions are widely publicised by Greek Consulates in Australia both in the English and Greek languages. The Sydney Greek language newspaper Helenic Herald frequently contains articles on this subject. We-

That is, the Department: . . have been active in attempting to come to understandings with certain other countries about the problems involved in dual nationality and obligations of dual nationals to do military service in those countries. There have, however, been no formal talks with other governments on the question.

The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence Report on Dual Nationality has been tabled in Parliament and the Chairman of the Joint Committee has asked the Ministers concerned to consider the Report and to table a paper informing the Senate of the Government’s observations and intentions with respect to the recommendations in the Report. An Interdepartmental committee has been set up to examine the Report and make recommendations to the Ministers concerned by early 1977.

page 2031

QUESTION

TRADE UNIONS

Senator JESSOP:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. To an extent it is supplementary to one I asked earlier. What is the Government’s view regarding increasing support throughout Australia for suggestions that the number of trade unions operating in Australia should be drastically reduced in the interests of industrial relations?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The Government and I are certainly aware of the number of views expressed recently in support of the principle that Senator Jessop mentioned. There certainly seems to be widespread recognition that there are too many unions in Australia. The President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has been quoted as supporting that principle. The Government’s policy on this matter was enunciated by me on behalf of the Government in the debate last week on the Bill to provide for collegiate voting in union elections, but I reiterate that the policy in this area is to foster and encourage the formation of industry-based unions. It has undertaken to discuss this matter with peak employee councils. Of course, the views of employer councils would also be required.

There has been a steady trend towards the reduction of the number of unions over recent years. For example, in the last 20 years the number of trade unions has been reduced by about 20 per cent, although this has occurred in part due to a process of amalgamation. The Government has regular meetings with State Ministers and officials through the Labor Ministers Conference and Department of Labour advisory committees. I believe these would for the most part be appropriate forums for these matters to be raised and considered.

page 2031

QUESTION

TELECOM AUSTRALIA

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. It follows a question asked earlier by Senator Georges. Has the Government intimated expressly or by implication to Telecom Australia not to receive or pass on messages from East Timor? Does the Government not accept that it and its statutory authorities have an obligation to give information to Australian residents, including new residents, and relatives or sympathisers of the East Timorese people living in Australia? Would the denial of information be a breach of international conduct and a repudiation of humanitarian principles? If Telecom is to discontinue receiving and passing on such messages, could the Overseas Telecommunications Commission be asked to provide this important facility of communication?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My understanding is that the Government has drawn to the attention of Telecom Australia that receipt of messages from overseas is outside its charter and has requested that the practice of passing on messages received by the Darwin outpost radio, which purport to emanate from a Fretilin transmitter in East Timor, should cease. It is true that officials of the Postal and Telecommunications Department in Darwin, in the normal course of their monitoring duties, have received certain foreign language messages which appear to have been transmitted illegally in the Darwin area. The officers have available to them suitable directionfinding equipment which can pinpoint the source of these transmissions. If and when further transmissions are monitored, the usual action will be taken, which will include seizure of the equipment and prosecution of those apprehended. It is not possible to say at this stage that the transmissions are associated with Fretilin or any other group.

Senator GIETZELT:

- Mr President, I have a supplementary question. If it is beyond the jurisdiction of Telecom Australia to provide this service, can OTC be asked to make available the resources and facilities to provide the information?

Senator CARRICK:

-I will pass that section of the question to the Minister in another place.

page 2031

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF CEILINGS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It follows previous questions asked by me relating to the fact that the current Public Service staff ceilings imposed by the Government are restricting the useful employment of apprentices, trainees, and other young people. It also refers to the fact that the Government’s community youth support scheme, which has been referred to by Senator Ryan, will cost the Government about $2m. I ask the Minister: In view of the fact that the situation is worsening, that the intake of apprentices has dropped and that the seasonal intake of school leavers will create a very serious position for young unemployed persons, will he ask his colleagues to reconsider the present policies of restricting Public Service ceilings at this stage in a way which prohibits the added employment of young people?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-One thing that has been made perfectly clear by this Government is that it intends to maintain the staff ceilings which have been adopted by it for the curent year. Senator Bishop nas asked me a number of questions on this matter and I have indicated to him that directions have been given to all departments that, despite the staff ceilings, they should have regard to the need to take on young people as trainees or apprentices. I know that Senator Bishop is particularly concerned about this matter. I will pass on to the Minister whom I represent the concern that he has expressed again today and I hope that I may get some more specific answers than I have been able to give so far as to what extent departments are taking heed of that direction which they have been given. I do not know whether that information can be obtained but I will see what I can do.

page 2032

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry advise whether he is aware of any developments that may have taken place today concerning negotiations with Japan on meat export quotas? If not, when may some developments be expected?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I cannot add anything of particular significance over and above what was stated yesterday when the Minister for Primary Industry and the Prime Minister had a discussion with Mr Okawara about the whole problem and communicated their concern and apprehension officially to the Japanese Government and to Prime Minister Miki. Those honourable senators who have followed this matter in the Press will have detected the broad undercurrents and the general position. I do not want to say a great deal more. The only other matter of any interest is that this morning in talking to one of the leading people from Japan in my own particular area of responsibility I told him that the Australian Government was extremely concerned about this matter and I hoped that when he went home he would make that comment to his own Government.

page 2032

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCES

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. On 10 November the Australian carried an advertisement for the Australian defence forces offering 9750 career opportunities to young people next year. I ask: When will this Government make available a similar number of career opportunities in peaceful pursuits, especially as the Minister for Defence has difficulty in finding opportunities for equality of employment in his Department because of the combatant nature of much of that employment?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I do not know whether this question should properly be directed at me, in relation to the Government’s policy on employment opportunities, or whether it should be directed at the Minister for Defence, in criticism of the fact that he is endeavouring to recruit for the defence forces. The question, insofar as it refers to a newspaper advertisement for recruitment for the defence forces, is one which would be part and parcel of the regular recruitment policy. I do not think that it is appropriate for me to comment any further on it.

page 2032

QUESTION

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. My question arises from an answer he gave to Senator Lajovic yesterday which is reported in today’s issue of the Australian under the heading Labor MPs Win Geriatric Stakes’. Is it not a fact that the oldest senators sit on the Government benches, three of them being on the wrong side of seventy? Is it not also a fact that 3 Government members in the other place are on the wrong side of sixty-eight?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I think the honourable senator has just displayed that age does not matter so much. What counts is what is between the ears.

page 2032

QUESTION

MAJOR-GENERAL STRETTON

Senator BAUME:

– My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, arises out of the publication recently of a book by Major-General Alan Stretton, out of claims made in that book which have been widely reported, and out of several detailed letters of protest and rebuttal appearing, for example, in today’s Press. Can the Minister advise what actions are proposed to make known the truth of certain specific allegations made by Major-General Stretton? Can the Minister assure the Senate that the Government will acquaint itself as to the correctness or the falsity of the various claims made, that any necessary corrective action within government will be taken, and that any persons falsely or unfairly accused on any matter can have their names cleared?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The Minister for Defence advises me that he has read the book and the official reports on the subject. It is the Minister’s opinion that there are undeniable conflicts between the book and the reports. He has put to study all criticisms made by Major-General Stretton. The Minister has no intention of seeking to hide anything arising out of the book or the reports. It is undeniable that there are lessons to be learned arising out of cyclone Tracy. The Minister himself, when in Opposition, raised several matters in a question in another place in relation to the procedures adopted in Darwin following the cyclone.

page 2033

FOX REPORT

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I take this opportunity to advise honourable senators- I was almost going to say Tweedledum and Tweedledee on the Opposition front bench but that would hardly be fair to Senator Button- that the Australian Government Publishing Service initially printed 4000 copies of the Fox report, 3000 of these being for sale at $4.50 a copy. I assume that the other 1000 copies were for distribution according to a free list. There are at the moment only 25 copies remaining for sale in various book shops. The AGPS is now reprinting a further 2800 copies of the Fox report, and 800 of these should be available tomorrow and should be distributed to the bookshops.

page 2033

GREEN REPORT

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I inform the Senate that an interim print of 450 copies of the Green report, primarily for free distribution in the Public Service, in the Parliament, and so on, has already been made. There will be a further printing of 2000 copies which are expected to be available either tomorrow or on Friday. Of these, 500 copies will be for sale and the remainder, I imagine, will be basically for free distribution. The sale price of the Green report will be $ 1 1 .80.

page 2033

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

- Mr President, yesterday I sought leave to have incorporated in Hansard some information in response to a question asked by Senator Grimes last week. Through some misunderstanding only some of the information was printed. I had intended that all of the material that I provided yesterday be printed in Hansard. I now seek leave to have printed in Hansard the documents which I had indicated yesterday as being for the information of honourable senators.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The documents read as follows-

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT

Minister for Social Security

Parliament House, Canberra A.C.T. 2600 17 March 1976

DIRECTOR-GENERAL

PRIVACY

You will recall our discussion on disclosure of information and privacy.

I have read carefully the Minute you forwarded to me on 22 February 1976. 1 have raised queries about that Minute with you and you have indicated that a further Minute will be prepared for my attention.

You will recall that there was some discussion at the recent conference of State Directors on Adminstrative Arrangements that have been necessary to give effect to the current policy regarding disclosure of information which became effective on 2 1 November 1973.

I am firmly of the view that a particular responsibility of a Minister, a permanent head of a Department, senior officers and employees in general, must be to ensure that the right to privacy of an individual must be safeguarded to the maximum extent possible.

I wish to be kept informed at all times of any problems that arise in this area and I would appreciate all senior officers giving continuing attention to this matter in the day to day administration of sections for which they have responsibility.

I would be grateful if you would let senior officers know of the importance I have attached to this question.

MARGARET GUILFOYLE Director 14 April 1976

Department of Social Security,

Sydney

Melbourne

Brisbane

Adelaide

Perth

Hobart

Disclosure of Information

Since November 1973 access to personal information recorded within the Department of Social Security has been restricted to cases where:

  1. there is explicit written or verifiable authorisation by the client concerned, or
  2. there exist grave reasons of public interest (in such cases approval to divulge information is given personally by either the Director-General or the Minister).

It should be noted that this policy applies to the Department as a whole and is much wider in its application than the earlier policy (ie. prior to November 1 973), which was based on Section 17 of the Social Services Act and was thus restricted to information acquired by an officer in the performance of his duties under the Social Services Act.

  1. The Minister recently considered the question of whether a client of the Department has a right to privacy of his or her personal information which has been provided to the Department for a specific purpose, eg. in connection with a claim for a pension or benefit, keeping in mind the Government’s announced policy to protect individual privacy the Minister has decided that the present policy should continue for the time being until the whole question of privacy is examined by the Law Reform Commission.
  2. In taking this decision the Minister is not unmindful of the administrative arrangements which have been necessary to give effect to the current policy on the disclosure of information and which were mentioned at the recent conference of State Directors.

The views of the Minister in relation to the control of information privacy’ are fully expressed in the following extract from a minute addressed to me recently:

I am firmly of the view that a particular responsibility of a Minister, a permanent head of a Department, senior officers and employees in general, must be to ensure that the right to privacy of an individual must be safeguarded to the maximum extent possible.

I wish to be kept informed at all times of any problems that arise in this area and I would appreciate all senior officers giving continuing attention to this matter in the day to day administration of sections for which they have responsibility.

I would be grateful if you would let senior officers know of the importance I have attached to this question. ‘

  1. Will you please ensure that the content of this memorandum is brought to the notice of all officers who have not been issued with a pensions or an unemployment and sickness benefits manual. Officers who are the holders of either of these manuals will receive the information contained in this memorandum by means of a new section in the manual.

    1. J. DANIELS Director-General

PENSIONS MANUAL DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION SECTION 31

FIRST ADVICE: CO. Reference 76/24

The following is the text of a memorandum sent to the State Directors on 14 April 1976.

Since November 1973 access to personal information recorded within the Department of Social Security has been restricted to cases where:

  1. there is explicit written or verifiable authorisation by the client concerned, or
  2. there exist grave reasons of public interest (in such cases approval to divulge information is given personally by either the Director-General or the Minister).

It should be noted that this policy applies to the Department as a whole and is much wider in its application than the earlier policy (i.e. prior to November, 1973) which was based on Section 17 of the Social Services Act and was thus restricted to information acquired by an officer in the performance of his duties under the Social Services Act.

  1. The Minister recently considered the question of whether a client of the Department has a right to privacy of his or her personal information which has been provided to the Department for a specific purpose, e.g. in connection with a claim for a pension or benefit. Keeping in mind the Government’s announced policy to protect individual privacy the Minister has decided that the present policy should continue for the time being until the whole question of privacy is examined by the Law Reform Commission.
  2. In taking this decision the Minister is not unmindful of the administrative arrangements which have been necessary to give effect to the current policy on the disclosure of information and which were mentioned at the recent conference of State Directors.

The views of the Minister in relation to the control of information privacy’ are fully expressed in the following extract from a minute addressed to me recently:

I am firmly of the view that a particular responsibility of a Minister, a permanent head of a Department, senior officers and employees in general, must be to ensure that the right to privacy of an individual must be safeguarded to the maximum extent possible.

I wish to be kept informed at all rimes of any problems that arise in this area and I would appreciate all senior officers giving continuing attention to this matter in the day to day administration of sections for which they have responsibility.

I would be grateful if you would let senior officers know of the importance I have attached to this question.

  1. Will you please ensure that the content of this memorandum is brought to the notice of all officers who have not been issued with a pensions or an unemployment and sickness benefits manual. Officers who are the holders of either of these manuals will receive the information contained in this memorandum by means of a new section in the manual.

    1. J. DANIELS

Director-General

Pensions Issue No. 7. May 1976

page 2038

U & SB MANUAL DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION SECTION 25

FIRST ADVICE: CO. Reference 76/24

The following is the text of a memorandum sent to the State Directors on 14 April 1976.

Since November 1973 access to personal information recorded within the Department of Social Security has been restricted to cases where:

It should be noted that this policy applies to the Department as a whole and is much wider in its application than the earlier policy (i.e. prior to November, 1973) which was based on Section 17 of the Social Services Act and was thus restricted to information acquired by an officer in the performance of his duties under the Social Services Act.

The views of the Minister in relation to the control of information privacy’ are fully expressed in the following extract from a minute addressed to me recently:

I am firmly of the view that a particular responsibility of a Minister, a permanent head of a Department, senior officers and employees in general, must be to ensure that the right to privacy of an individual must be safeguarded to the maximum extent possible.

I wish to be kept informed at all times of any problems that arise in this area and I would appreciate all senior officers giving continuing attention to this matter in the day to day administration of sections for which they have responsibility.

I would be grateful if you would let senior officers know of the importance I have attached to this question.

Director-General

U & SB Issue No. 13 May, 1976

page 2038

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

- Mr President, I wish to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– Yes. I refer to the matter raised by Senator Cavanagh following the question asked of me earlier by Senator Knight. Several questions with regard to the payment of the unemployment benefits to students or university graduates have been asked in recent days. I indicated at the beginning of the answer to Senator Knight’s question that a similar question had been asked yesterday by Senator Grimes. At all times I want to give whatever information is available on these matters to the Senate, believing that people who are entitled to benefits should have knowledge of them. The matter raised by Senator Knight with regard to students at the Australian National Unversity is a fairly natural one for him to raise.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Senator Grimes asked that question yesterday.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

- Senator Grimes raised the matter yesterday. I have looked at the answer that was given to him and I have clarified a further matter in his question by letter to him today.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That was in reply to Senator Knight.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– If I were to suggest that answers need not be given to questions if similar questions have recently been asked by other honourable senators I believe that the spirit of question time would not be upheld.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You prepared a question so that Senator Knight could get Senator Grimes’s answer.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– That was not my intention when I answered the question from Senator Knight. The purpose of my seeking to make a personal explanation was to clarify any doubts which might remain in the minds of students of the Australian National University with regard to their entitlements for unemployment benefits during the vacation.

Senator KNIGHT (Australian Capital Territory) I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator KNIGHT:

– I resent the implications of the statements by Senator Cavanagh. Under the Standing Orders it is improper to reflect upon another Senator. I suggest that his statement is improper. At no time has anyone asked me to ask a question, nor would I ask a question that someone had suggested I should ask. I indicated to Senator Guilfoyle that what was said yesterday was not entirely clear. I have had inquiries about the subject. I think it was quite reasonable for me to seek to have the matter clarified.

page 2039

EXPORT FINANCE AND INSURANCE CORPORATION

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– Pursuant to section 88 of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1974 I present the annual report of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 2039

NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR THE HANDICAPPED

Ministerial Statement

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped for the year ended 30 June 1976. 1 seek leave to make a statement relating to that report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– This report reviews activities of the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped for the year ended 30 June 1976, and makes recommendations for the development of rehabilitation services and facilities for the current year. The National Advisory Council for the Handicapped was established in 1975 for the purpose of advising the Government on all aspects of policies affecting the rehabilitation of the handicapped. The Council is chaired by Mr Justice C. L. D. Meares of the New South Wales Supreme Court and has 1 1 members, appointed for their personal knowledge of and experience in matters concerning rehabilitation and services for the handicapped. The Council is supported administratively by a secretariat within my Department’s Rehabilitation Division. To assist in co-ordination, there is a standing committee of Commonwealth officials representing departments with responsibilities for the administration of the Government’s programs for the handicapped. Council has recently formed a number of specialised committees to inquire into particular issues referred for consideration, including the philosophy and administration of invalid pensions; research and education in rehabilitation; medical and social aspects; rehabilitation engineering and aids and appliances; and transport for the disabled. The Council proposes to promote a national seminar on rehabilitation engineering in 1977. The recommendations made by Council aim at a more effective use of existing programs, with particular emphasis on the need to evaluate and upgrade existing services and the better assessment of future requirements.

To strengthen and integrate the development of rehabilitation services nationally the Council has recommended the establishment of Statebased advisory committees which will bring together statutory and non-statutory bodies working with and for handicapped people at the local level. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has written to the State Premiers seeking their views on this matter. The results of research projects funded on the recommendations of NACH will be published from time to time in the National Rehabilitation Research and Development Digest which is to be produced and published as an organ of the Council. This publication will be distributed to all members of the Parliament and circulated to the Press gallery and to a large number of voluntary organisations throughout Australia so as to ensure adequate dispersal of information about rehabilitation matters.

I have recently asked that the Council advise me on ways in which it might establish closer links with handicapped people. The Chairman has indicated that the Council will initially seek to develop a model for consultative procedures in the field of the blind and visually handicapped. I should like to place on record the Government’s appreciation of the very valuable work being done by the Council. I believe that through its efforts much benefit will flow to those of our community in need through handicap and disability.

In the context of the Council ‘s report, I wish to indicate broadly the thrust of my Department’s programs and planning for the handicapped. Under the present Government, responsibility for the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped, for the various forms of income maintenance for the sick and disabled, as well as for the Commonwealth’s own direct forms of rehabilitation assistance to the handicapped, are, for the first time, linked under the one Minister. The key emphasis is toward the elimination of fragmented services and towards attaining comprehensive, integrated rehabilitation programs which are not just related to medical disability, but encompass the continuing social, educational and vocational needs of the handicapped individual.

The Department of Social Security provides assistance to physically and mentally handicapped people in 3 main forms: Through pensions, benefits and allowances; through the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service which provides medical, social, educational and vocational rehabilitation services; and through programs of subsidy assistance to organisations providing specified services for handicapped people.

The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, established over 28 years ago, is the largest vocational rehabilitation service in Australia. In that time, it has assisted nearly 47 000 seriously handicapped persons, including some 31 600 who have been able to return to some form of gainful employment. Nowadays the Service accepts about 3000 persons each year for rehabilitation treatment and training. Apart from the obvious benefits for the handicapped individual, the taxpayer also benefits from vocational rehabilitation which is recognised internationally as having high cost-effectiveness.

Following completion, within the next 2 to 3 years, of major new rehabilitation facilities in Sydney, Brisbane, Hobart and Townsville, the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service will be able to offer comprehensive programs through nine main centres to many more persons in need of assistance following severe disablement. Regional rehabilitation units, of which there are twelve at present, offer a significant expansion of rehabilitation services into local areas. In planning for departmental facilities considerable care has been taken to ensure that to the greatest possible degree, they form an integral part of local health and welfare services, including those of voluntary agencies.

Under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act, the Government provides financial assistance on a $4 for $ 1 basis to approved voluntary religious and similar organisations towards the cost of establishing and maintaining sheltered workshops, activity centres, training centres for handicapped children and residential accommodation. Assistance is also available to help organisations with costs incurred in employing suitable staff to conduct these activities.

An amount of $ 121m has been allocated for the current 3 year period. An amount of $88m will be required for continuing support for 750 facilities catering for more than 40 000 handicapped people. An amount of $33m will be available for new facilities over the 3-year period. On 1 7 August I announced 39 new projects for 1 976-77 and last week I approved projects for 1977-78 and 1978-79. During 1977-78, a total of 70 projects will be funded and to date 36 more have been approved for 1978-79. All senators concerned have been advised individually about the details of projects approved in their electorates for funding during the triennium. Full particulars are set out in the accompanying tables which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The tables read as follows-

Handicapped Persons Assistance Act- New Projects 1977-78/1978-79

Explanatory Note Concerning Tables

These Tables do not include projects for Western Australia, which are the subject of current discussion among the interested parties, by agreement between the Commonwealth and Western Australian Governments.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– New projects for Western Australia for 1977-78 and 1978-79 have not yet been announced because of the keen interest shown by a number of voluntary organisations in Western Australia to develop major new projects, the value of which is such that the extent of grants required is in excess of the amount available for that State. By agreement between the Commonwealth and Western Australian governments, an initial conference of interested parties took place on 28 October in Perth. Further discussions will be necessary before priorities can be determined.

Particular emphasis is being given by both the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped and my own department to the evaluation of the effectiveness of programs for the handicapped. For example, educational, vocational and residential programs conducted by voluntary organisations for the moderately to severely mentally handicapped in the 3 largest States are the subject of a research program funded by the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped and involving a Queensland University team utilising a recently developed evaluation system called Program Analysis of Service Systems. At the same time, my Department, in co-operation with the Monash and Macquarie Universities, is assessing the effectiveness of its work preparation programs for the mildly retarded. The department is also surveying sheltered workshops and activity therapy centres subsidised under the new broader guidelines within the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act, to provide a firmer basis for future government planning.

The Commonwealth Government is very conscious of the need to ensure that buildings and transport services are accessible to people with a wide range of handicaps. Apart from provisions for home and work-place modifications for rehabilitees, the Commonwealth is applying stringent standards of accessibility to its own new buildings and is encouraging the States to do likewise. It is important that local government authorities apply similar standards in their building codes. The developments that I have outlined illustrate the Government’s concern for the welfare of the handicapped and the high priority afforded the provision of adequate facilities and care to meet their needs. Honourable senators will, I am sure, wish to endorse my own expression of appreciation of the substantial efforts of the many voluntary organisations assisting handicapped people. It is especially encouraging to note the gradual growth in the numbers of self-help groups- organisations made up of handicapped people themselves- which are pioneering new approaches to meeting the needs of the handicapped.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I seek leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GRIMES:

-I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2046

PATENT TRADEMARKS AND DESIGNS OFFICE

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Patent Trademarks and Designs Office for the year ended 30 June 1 976.

page 2046

NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS BUILDING PROGRAM

Ministerial Statement

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– by leave- On 4 November 1976 I announced the Government’s decisions on the recommendations of the Schools Commission for the 1977-79 rolling triennium. At that time I indicated that schemes to guarantee loans and to provide advance approvals for non-government school building projects had been accepted in principle. The proposed introduction of these schemes was reiterated in the second reading speech on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1976 in the House of Representatives on 10 November. I would like to give details of these schemes which will contribute significantly to the economic and orderly planning of non-government school building projects.

Advance Approvals of Grants

The procedures for the operation of the scheme aim to give advance approvals in 1977 for capital grants for non-government school priority projects during 1978 and 1979. In developing a system of advance approvals of capital grants, it is essential to retain a substantial degree of flexibility for future years to cope with unforeseen priority demands, with developments in government policy, and with on-going commitments. The Schools Commission planning and finance committees in each State and Territory will be asked to recommend a program of grants for the 1 977-79 triennium.

With the objective in mind of managing forward commitments in a manner consistent with responsible program planning and budgeting, the Minister may give advance approvals for 1 978 and 1 979 up to a limit of 75 per cent and 50 per cent respectively of the level of funds to be made available in 1977. The cost of projects given advance approval will then form part of the total allocation for non-government schools in 1978 and 1979. Grants promised to schools in respect of 1978 and 1979 will become effective in January of the appropriate year. Against these firm offers of assistance, schools will be able to benefit from early planning and construction.

The scheme that I have outlined above for the 3-year period, 1977-79, will become part of the rolling triennium procedures.

Loan Guarantees

The loan guarantees scheme adopted by the Government will enable the Commonwealth to act as a guarantor for those non-government schools which need to raise loans to finance wholly or partially the construction of approved priority school facilities. This is especially important for schools lacking established institutional backing and may lead to more favourable lending conditions in particular cases. The Government has decided that:

  1. Loan guarantees will be provided to priority projects recommended by the Schools Commission, including projects that are not recommended for grants, finance for which could not otherwise be reasonably obtained on satisfactory terms;
  2. A limit of $ 10m per annum will be placed on the total amount of loans that may attract commonwealth guarantees in any one year.
  3. Safeguards will be included in the proposed scheme to provide for the Commonwealth to recover any cost to it, in the event of default.

Loan guarantees will not be provided to cover that part of the cost of a project which has attracted an advance offer of assistance since the formal undertaking itself provides security. The loans guarantee scheme will become operative following the passage of enabling legislation in the autumn session in 1977.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate · Tasmania

– Normally I would move that the Senate take note of the statement but as we will be dealing with education Bills shortly, I suggest that this matter be the subject of debate when we deal with those Bills.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I seek leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator CARRICK:

-I move:

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2046

QUESTION

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE E

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-I present additional written answers received by Estimates

Committee E since the presentation of its report on 2 1 October. I move:

That the answers be printed as part of the report of that Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2047

AIR TRAFFIC BILLS

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Withers) by leaveagreeed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the remaining stages for the passage through the Senate of the Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1976 and the Airports (Surface Traffic) Amendment Bill 1976 being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

page 2047

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Motion ( by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to make provision for a Defence Service Homes Corporation, and for related purposes.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second dme.

The prime purpose of this Bill is to reconstitute the Australian Housing Corporation in accordance with the Government’s announced policy and to change its name, nature and function so that its sole responsibility will be the administration of the Defence Service Homes Scheme. The Liberal and National Country Parties stated prior to the 1 975 election that the activities of the Australian Housing Corporation would be critically examined. Following that examination, the Government decided that the Corporation should be abolished, a decision which was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 2 February 1 976.

When the Australian Housing Corporation Bill 1975 was debated in this Parliament, the attitude adopted then by the Liberal and National Country Parties was that the Australian Housing Corporation represented an unnecessary and undesirable duplication of services already available, particularly those services provided by the various State governments. The Government has found no evidence to the contrary in its investigations. On the other hand, the Government is wholeheartedly committed to the preservation and continuation of the Defence

Service Homes Scheme, which we see as a scheme of historical and social importance for a large number of Australians. This Bill therefore provides for the establishment of a Defence Service Homes Corporation, the affairs of which will be conducted within the departmental framework by the Secretary to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. The very recent establishment of this Department is evidence of the Government’s interest in the welfare of those who have served this country in the armed Services.

Those provisions of the Australian Housing Corporation Act concerned with the powers and functions of the Corporation, other than those related to the provision of assistance under the Defence Service Homes Scheme, are repealed. The Corporation will be renamed the Defence Service Homes Corporation and continue its existence as a corporate entity solely for the purpose of administering the Defence Service Homes Act. The Australian Housing Corporation Act as amended will be renamed the Defence Service Homes Corporation Act. When the Australian Housing Corporation was established, the assets and liabilities of the Defence Service Homes Scheme were taken over by the Corporation and new financial arrangements were developed to facilitate the provision of benefits at that time under the proposed scheme. The staff administering the scheme, who had always been members of the Public Service, were lent to the Corporation and employed by it outside of the Public Service Act under the provisions of the Australian Housing Corporation Act. To ensure that there is no break in continuity in the administration of the Defence Service Homes Scheme, the finance and staffing provisions contained in the Australian Housing Corporation Act will be retained and the present staff will continue in employment under the new Corporation.

I wish to take the opportunity to indicate the Government’s appreciation of the contribution made by the members of the Board of the Australian Housing Corporation during their tenure of office, under the leadership of their distinguished Chairman, Mr A. M. Ramsay, C.B.E. These members have given of their time and have individually and collectively made their contribution towards the operation of the Corporation in its short life. Their contribution is appreciated by the Government. Mr President, I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 2048

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES ASSISTANCE) BILL 1976

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 16 November, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Senate has before it a set of 8 Bills all dealing with education. I understand that the Government is agreeable to them being dealt with in a cognate debate. Assuming that to be the case, I shall proceed on that basis. I indicate that later the Opposition will move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill relating to technical and further education. The Opposition also intends to move some amendments in the Committee stage.

The Bills are really an endorsement of the policies which were instituted by the Labor Government during the 3 years it was in office. Many of the ideas that were enunciated then and put into effect have been continued in this legislation. In fact, I think it fair to say that the greatly increased role of education in Australia, which was exemplified during those 3 years, has been recognised by this Government. Indeed, the approach of the Government, although varied in some respects, remains basically the same.

I think it important in considering these 8 Bills that we look back over the developments in the education area in recent years. I am sure most of us are aware that when the Australian Labor Party came to office in 1972 it did so on the basis of a strong commitment to inject a much higher proportion of our resources into the education area. We believe- I think this Government is recognising this-that the opportunities for Australian children must not in any way be hampered by their inability to receive an equal opportunity in education, no matter what vocation they have in mind. It was for this reason that after many years of neglect in the federal sphere the Labor Government appointed a series of commissions to advise the Government of the day on the priorities that were needed.

We worked on the assumption that the areas which should receive the greatest assistance were those with the greatest needs. We decided to establish the Schools Commission, which was the one that was of principal concern to us. The Technical and Further Education Commission was also established during that time. On the recommendations of the interim committee that was formed to assess the needs in this area it became obvious when the first report was available that if we were to achieve any sort of development in our education fields in Australia, particularly in our schools, it was necessary for the Federal Government to have a much greater financial involvement in our investment in education. That interim committee proposed a plan to bring all Australian schools, both government and non-government schools, up to a certain standard by the end of the decade. Of course that involved a massive outlay of money which eventually would have meant thousands of millions of dollars. In the last year of the previous McMahon Government and the first year of the Labor Government federal expenditure on the total education system was in the area of only some $400m. By the time the Australian Labor Party left office last year that commitment had been increased to almost $2,000m.

In the first and second years of the Labor Government we made some large increases in expenditure. We realised that if any impact were to be made it was necessary for these large increases to take place. We recognised that any government which undertook to increase funding in any area whatsoever at the rate that we did in education could not be expected to do that indefinitely. Depending always of course on the circumstances of the economy, we were restricted in our third year from continuing the rate of increased expenditure which we had commenced in the first and second years. As a government we were naturally regretful that we had to take that step, but the facts were obvious. We had made massive progress in the first 2 years. We had given a lift to education in Australia. We had given hope to teachers, with new programs, innovations etc. We had also given hope to parents, particularly parents of children in the poorer schools, in both government and nongovernment sectors. The program instituted by the Labor Government meant that these children would have an equal opportunity with children of parents who were better able to afford an education. Our program ensured that all Australian children would be able to get a standard of education which I am sure all of us would wish to see.

It was apparent that we had to shift a great deal of our resources from other areas, to achieve the objectives which we set ourselves. I am sure nobody would argue that we went a long way towards achieving those ends. Without doubt, the most fundamental achievement was to lift education in this country to a new threshold from which this Government has been reluctant to depart. I dare say that the second most important achievement was that we took out of education in this country to a very large measure the sectarian issue which had become so apparent in previous years. That was achieved as a result of our initiative on the needs basis. We instructed the Schools Commission to make its assessments and its recommendations to the Government on the basis of the genuine needs of the school system as an entity. I hope that nobody in this countrynobody in this Government- would wish to depart from that principle. If we were to depart from it, obviously the whole sectarian debate would be opened up again. I believe it would be a disastrous and immoral move if, for any political reason or for any political advantage, any effort were made to do that. I am sure it would be resisted by the great majority of Australians if any government attempted to do that.

We introduced the system of triennial funding. We believed that to plan ahead for development in education in Australia it was necessary that the education system as a whole be able to make its projections over a period of 2 or 3 years. We believed that the Government, in conjunction with the State governments, could ensure that the necessary funding would be available and we would update the costing arrangements to ensure that programs which had been commenced could be completed. In the third year of the Labor Government it became necessary for us to have a holding operation. In 1976 we made provision for one year’s expenditure outside the normal triennial arrangements. It must be emphasised that at no time did we abandon the triennium principle. The step that was taken was one that was necessary in the light of the economic conditions in which we found ourselves. At the same time we instructed the Commission to prepare for the subsequent triennium. I hope that during this debate we will not be confronted with arguments about abandonment of the triennium being perpetrated by the previous Government. By contrast, the present Government has introduced what it calls the rolling triennium. I think it should be said, in fairness, that the present Government finds itself in a very similar position to the one in which we found ourselves. I concede that point. It invites the question: Is it possible for any government to give an open cheque to any commission of education, to any commission or to any government body? Can a government give a commission a free hand to make recommendations involving very large items of expenditure?

This Government set guidelines. I do not particularly argue with that principle. In fact, it was written into legislation which the Labor Government introduced in 1975. 1 refer to the Tertiary Education Commission Bill which, unfortunately, was not passed by the Senate in that year. We must ask ourselves this question: If a government wants to set guidelines which obviously involve financial strictures, what are those guidelines to be? This is where I think it is apparent that the present Government differs from the previous Government on education philosophy. Both governments, last year and this year, found themselves caught in very difficult economic circumstances. They had to rein in the increase in expenditure on education, to provide for other government services. At this stage I will not involve myself in the issue of this Government’s policy of transferring of responsibility to the States. I will say something about that later. I will keep to the immediate position. This Government now says that it is introducing the rolling triennium system. It has given an undertaking of a certain growth factor in real terms for the 4 spheres of education- the 4 commissions. It remains to be seen whether that money is actually expended.

Under the so-called rolling triennium, a certain percentage increase in real terms is given, allegedly, as a guarantee for the second and third years. They are extremely small percentages. Even if a 2 per cent increase is allowed, for example, in schools in real terms it is quite apparent, as the Schools Commission pointed out, that this will not be sufficient to enable the Commission to improve the standard of education in this country. I quote from page 3 of the Schools Commission report on this point:

While it is clear from the early pan of the guidelines and from the finance provided that it is not expected that it will be possible to do more than maintain existing standards in government and non-government schools during the 1977-79 triennium, other parts of the guidelines direct the

Commission’s attention to needs which could only be met if there were considerable additional finance. The 2 per cent real growth in funds for 1977 must be seen in relation to the fact that enrolments in the States are estimated to grow by 1.11 per cent. It is important to realise that the guidelines cannot be met in full: The objects of maintaining existing standards while also undertaking other initiatives, thought modest and directed towards immediate needs, are too ambitious within the funds allocated.

It is quite clear that the Schools Commission does not see the minimal factor which this Government has permitted it under the guidelines as being adequate to expand the facilities in this country, taking into account the increase in enrolments. If one considers the position on the basis of the amount of finance being provided per student throughout the system, obviously in real terms the amount falls. It is as simple as that. Less money will be provided for each child on a per capita basis. The Universities Commission, at page 6 of its report, stated:

The Australian universities are moving from an environment of steady growth in a student numbers to one in which there will be no growth. Inherent in a situation of no growth are problems which, if not faced, must lead to deterioration in the standards of teaching and research in Australian universities . . .

The effect of the unavoidable increases in cost is to reverse the real operational resources per student which would otherwise have been available. This reduction, together with the increase in student numbers, which are still working thenway through the system, means that real operational resources per student will, by 1 979, be some 3 per cent below those in 1975.

That quotation from the Universities Commission’s report is at the heart of the problem as it sees it and is very much in line with the sort of problem which the Schools Commission itself recognises.

Turning to the report of the Technical and Further Education Commission, we find that it states at page 14:

The amount available if the minimum growth of 5 per cent guaranteed for 1978 and 1979 under the guidelines formula becomes the actual program for 1977-79 would be $230m. The Commission must point out that a triennial program of this amount would fail to achieve even the minimum objective. It would not keep pace with needs generated by increased enrolments, let alone begin to redress current deficiencies.

Those 3 quotations, from the Schools Commission’s report, the Universities Commission’s report and the Technical and the Further Education Commission ‘s report, all indicate that the financial restraints which have been imposed by this Government on education will have a detrimental effect on the programs which those bodies had initiated and had been enabled to initiate under the Whitlam Government.

General purpose revenues which have been used to maintain, amongst other things, funds for schools and technical education by the States have been kept at a rate comparable only with the rate of inflation. Clearly, from that we can see that no real growth can possibly take place. In addition, funds for capital works which are used for the building of schools and technical colleges have been cut. In real terms, they have been cut by approximately 10 per cent. Yet we hear the Federal Government continuing to exhort the States to maintain their building programs. In fact, quite apart from the restrictions that have been imposed on education spending, we find that, throughout the whole of the program of Commonwealth funding to the States, the same picture emerges with the States being left to accept more and more of the financial burden. If they are not prepared to do that, obviously there will be less money for schools and less provision will be made for education purposes.

On the question of technical and further education, the Opposition will be moving an amendment, which I think has been circulated in the chamber, the purpose of which is to draw attention to the fact that insufficient resources are being directed into technical education. We will recall that the establishment of the Technical and Further Education Commission was delayed because of the total absence of data. This was a direct legacy of the previous McMahon Liberal Government and other Liberal governments before it which were not interested in the development of technical education in Australia. Consequently, when the Whitlam Government set about this program of assisting technical education in Australia there was very little data on which it could work. This was one of the reasons why the introduction of the program in the technical area got away to what must be admitted was a slow start.

Yet, there had been a dramatic increase in the number of students at technical colleges in Australia. When the Labor Government was in office the increase was approximately 100 per cent; in fact, I think it was more than that. Funding was increased by 350 per cent. No one could justifiably claim that the Labor Government did not recognise the problem. But because of the difficulties which we inherited from the neglect by Liberal governments over many years it became that much more difficult to institute our programs with the speed that we were able to use in other areas.

It is important to remember again what the Technical and Further Education Commission has pointed out in respect of the consequences for the future of failing to provide for skilled manpower. It is an amazing fact, Mr Acting

Deputy President, that in an increasingly technological age when we need highly trained people in the technical area this aspect is the Cinderella of Australian education and the one aspect which has been neglected most. I repeat that it was quite impossible for the Labor Government to overcome those problems in the brief time that was available to it. The Technical and Further Education Commission had something to say on this matter. It pointed out:

Australia is not training sufficient numbers of tradesmen and technicians, nor are they likely to be gained through migration. Due to the present economic situation employers are reluctant to take on apprentices, so that the number now in training will not cater for the demand for skilled tradesmen when an upward swing occurs in the economy. This shortage will retard economic recovery and create new inflationary pressures. The gravity of the situation becomes clear when it is realised that the TAFE system throughout Australia is not able to cope adequately now with the reduced number of ap- prentices and others seeking skills. An adequate skilled abour force is not available and without rapid development of the TAFE system Australia will not be equipped to meet its future requirements for skilled manpower. The problem is one of national importance and if it is to be corrected will require a change in the distribution of educational expenditure in favour of TAFE. It will require Commonwealth supplementation of State effort additional to that envisaged under the guidelines.

In that extract we see spelt out in the clearest terms the need for a greater emphasis in this area. I acknowledge the problems that this Government has had in endeavouring to meet all the commitments upon it, but if there was one area to which it could have directed more of its resources- not just education resources but more of its total resources- that area should have been the technical area. There is a commitment for a marginally higher rate of increase in technical education; it is Vh per cent. But it is quite evident that this is only a very small increase over and above those granted to the other commissions and one to which the Government itself could give more attention. It is for that reason that the Opposition will move an amendment to the second reading. We will seek to make it quite clear that we believe in a much greater emphasis being placed in the future on technical education.

It was interesting to read the report printed in the Australian Press today of the report published in the New York Times concerning the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development which, in discussing the dangers of the policies of the present Government in Australia, warned the Australian Government that it could not count on much impetus from overseas in 1977. That is what this Government appears to have been relying upon. That OECD report says that the rate of economic recovery in the United States of America and other major industrial countries will fall markedly this year unless they adopt exceptional economic policies. The reason I have mentioned this matter is that it indicates the gravity of the situation confronting skilled manpower. There will be an upturn in the economy at some time in the future. It seems to be a long way off. I am told that last night the Government’s economic committee was given a prediction by one of the top businessmen in Australia of an unemployment figure of 600 000 next year. I believe the gentleman who gave the Government’s economic committee that prediction will not be far out in what he predicted.

I finish on a note of uncertainty for the future of education in Australia. There is uncertainty because, as I pointed out at the beginning, this Government does not have the same commitment to education as the previous Government had. It is known that the Government is considering the whole of education funding with a view to transferring some of it to the States. To what extent the States are aware of what is in store for them under the federalism policy, and specifically for education, I do not know. One thing is certain. This Government has committed itself, I would think irrevocably now, to the transfer of financial responsibility to the States. It is not going to transfer decision-making powers by any means. It is going to keep all the decisionmaking powers in Canberra, but it is going to transfer to the States the responsibility of paying for things. Obviously education will be one of” the major areas in which this will take place. In fact it puts the future of education under a cloud.

The Government at present does not seem to be prepared to spell out the precise relationship of its education policies to the total federalism policy, but I think it is quite clear that there will be no more reason why education will escape the clutches of the federalism concept of this Government than any other area of expenditure. I can only close by saying that if the Government sees fit to break down, destroy or dismantle the massive gains that were made for education under the Whitlam Government it will be a tragedy for Australia. It will be an indication that it is a government concerned only with supporting those who can afford to look after themselves. I believe the Australian nation and the Australian people would suffer greatly if such a course were to be adopted. On behalf of the Opposition I formally move:

At the end of the motion add ‘but the Senate is of the opinion that insufficient resources are being directed into the technical education area ‘.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– The Senate is debating in a cognate arrangement a series of Bills dealing with education. We are appreciative of the fact that the lead for the Opposition in discussing this matter this afternoon has been given by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt). In his speech he claimed that the Bills were based largely on Australian Labor Party policies. He outlined a program in which the Labor Party had been engaged for 2 years and then proceeded to destroy the argument by apologising for the decline. I would have thought that if the Australian Labor party laid claim to triennial funding, programming and planning, this funding, planning and arrangement would at least have taken care of the 3 years and there should not have been any necessity for an apology to be made for a decline which obviously took place in the last of the 3 years.

The Senate is debating a series of 8 Bills. This is a large number of Bills, a large number of second reading speeches and a considerable amount of detail to be covered in a cognate debate. The items within the 8 Bills include universities, advanced education, technical and further education, to which some extensive reference has been made, and non-government schools at several levels. In the series of 8 second reading speeches which the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) put down the matters of funding, salaries and administration, residential accommodation and the important matter of community involvement are included. One of the Bills gives effect to programs for disadvantaged country areas. There are also references to migrants and multicultural education and education for the handicapped. In short, the legislation could be described as a total package deal. I suppose it is true to say that it may be impressive, and I guess it has a considerable amount of efficiency in terms of fund allocation and administration at a legislative level. But this is such a comprehensive survey of education in Australian that I fear it becomes impossible to examine in detail or in principle any particular area.

It is true that statements have been made by the Minister in previous weeks, that guidelines have been put down by him, and that proposals have been spelt out. The Bills are an implementation of both those and government policy statements. It is important to observe above all that this legislation is described as States Grants Bills. At the commencement of the second reading speeches common reference is made to the provision of funds to the States in one form or another. Of course, the substance of the Bills is finance for education. Education is a matter which, as everybody knows, is administered by the States. It is an issue with many interesting aspects relating to federal involvement and contribution.

It is some 20 years ago that the State Premiers were placed in the position of very great difficulty as they faced up to the need for expanded education and the limits of their own revenues. The Australian Education Council, after a series of surveys and reports, alerted the Australian community to the national nature of education problems. It focused attention on the need for additional funding, additional facilities and additional personnel. At the same time it was pointed out that there were grave inadequacies in the States’ revenue capabilities. Side by side with this, the Commonwealth Government of the day initiated what I would describe as the now historic Murray Committee and the now historic Martin Committee inquiries. As a consequence of the reports of those committees legislation committed the Commonwealth Government of the day, a Liberal-Country Party Government, to considerable long term expenditure on tertiary education. It was at this time that the triennial funding process came into existence. Therefore any claim which the Leader of the Opposition made earlier today about the Labor Party initiating triennial funding is laid to rest. In short, the LiberalCountry Party Government long ago grasped the nettle of Australian education, the need for greater funding, the need for better standards and the need for greater availability of education to the widest possible range of the Australian people. The implication of the Murray Committee and the Martin Committee, and the legislation which flowed from their reports, has been that the Commonwealth Government has been involved in funding education and the development of education ever since. It was the Liberal-Country Party Government which accepted this principle, and it has not departed from it. In a very recent statement the Minister said that education has been given the top priority by the Fraser Government. In the intervening years since the initiating moves we have had both extensions and developments in a wide variety of areas and ways.

It is important to observe in a multi-Bill debate such as this that there are several important aspects flowing from the initiative that was taken a couple of decades ago. There will always be argument in a federation about the role of the Commonwealth in a matter that affects the total community in the way education does. Therefore the legality of Commonwealth grants is and has been a matter of debate, consideration and concern. Nevertheless, over the years the legality situation has been strengthened by a broadening of the interpretation of the States grants position in section 96 of the Constitution. Another important aspect is the increasing priority which is being afforded to expenditure on education and, within that expenditure, the differential growth of the various sections of educational enterprise. This does not mean to say that the answer to all educational problems is met simply by showering funds upon a given area or a given discipline. In his speech this afternoon the Leader of the Opposition placed emphasis on the fact that the previous Administration’s contribution to education was achieved simply by showering funds upon it, without any particular attention to what those funds might produce or what effect the lavishing of those funds might have on other sections of the Australian community.

A further aspect flowing from the initiatives taken by the earlier Liberal Government- this point was made earlier today- has been the resolving of the political and religious debate on the question of state aid and governmental assistance to non-government schools. But above all what has flowed from this earlier involvement of the Commonwealth in education has been the enormous public expenditure on education which has produced the ever-present query about value for money. I use the phrase in a very general way, but the observation is bound up closely with the substance of the Bills before the Senate this afternoon. They are States grants Bills. They involve vast sums of money. They involve great amounts of taxpayers’ money. Therefore, the question of value for money springs naturally to the minds of a lot of people. It is also a difficult criticism to respond to. To some extent we are dealing in intangibles and there is always a question of whether education is for a vocation and is therefore related to income and to the economy, or whether it is for some quality of life or just the enjoyment of society.

The Minister’s second reading speeches spell out the financial grants to the States and list allocations to a wide range of educational interests and benefits. I accept the fact that these speeches, the clauses of the Bills and their purpose fulfil an historical connection, but more importantly they make a bold, constructive, creative, adventurous, extending and growing contribution to education in Australia.

I now refer to the initiative taken by an earlier government of Liberal philosophy. I think it is important to draw attention to the fact that the present Liberal Government, upon assuming office, found a number of serious major problems in the area of education. The matter of inflation is not unrelated to an education program. Inflation was at a record level and therefore it seriously threatened the real values of any capital program and indeed of any recurrent program. Education is of course related to employment. When the present Government came to office it found that of the 300 000 people unemployed 40 per cent were young people, most of them under 21 years of age and all of them closely associated with programs of education. The Government found on coming to office that a decision by the previous Administration in August 1975 had cut the 4 Commissions’ programs for the calendar year 1976 by a total of $ 105m. That cut can be compared to the amount for the calendar year 1975. The triennial funding and planning program which the previous Administration was pursuing had been set aside. I suppose it could be said that it had been abandoned. The previous Administration froze all student allowances, even though no changes had been made since 1 January 1975 and the current allowances were at 1974 values. The Fraser Government had to take on board this situation with some realism and act quickly.

In the matter of inflation, honourable senators will recall that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development recently drew attention to the fact that current inflation in Australia is only fractionally more than the average of the European countries. Furthermore, while unemployment is still at a very serious level it is showing signs of abating. But it will not do so until inflation is further contained. Since assuming office the Fraser Government has restored education funding. It has provided real money increases in each of the four important education commission areas. The grants for universities and schools will increase by about 2 per cent, for colleges of advanced education by about 5 per cent and for technical and further education, which is the subject of today’s amendment, by the highest amount, Th. per cent. In addition, the principle of a rolling triennium has been introduced. This is a matter of some interest because it is calling for some questioning and some consideration by a whole range of people who have an attachment to the education discipline. The rolling triennium will enable, as each year progresses, a review to be made of the remaining 2 years in the triennium. What is more important, it will give initial concrete and sound proposals for what can be described as the new third year. This will mean that educational planning not only has been proceeding in spite of the difficulties which the Fraser Government inherited, but also is providing for a constant review and constant opportunity to upgrade and improve and at the same time preserve the basic and practical principle of 3-year funding so that those involved in the education area will know where they are going and will know how to plan in their own particular areas.

In speaking to these measures I think it is natural that those of us who are involved should refer to the areas with which we have had some connection or some particular interest. As I said earlier, it is quite impossible even to make a comment on the whole range of education areas that are covered in these 8 Bills. As honourable senators know, I am a champion of the work of Senate committees. The Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts has been busy for some considerable time on an educational matter. The recommendations and conclusions which it presented to the Minister for Education have resulted in a response from the Government and from the Minister. I am thinking of the Committee’s inquiry into the education of isolated school children, the report of which was presented to the Senate only a few weeks ago. In relation to the general tone of the Bills which are before the Senate today the report had one or two things to say. I want to take a moment of the Senate’s time to refer briefly to them. The problem of isolated school children and the problem of isolation from school facilities have become prominent for a number of reasons. Included in those reasons are not only educational reasons but also personal and social reasons which relate to the whole of Australian development. A lot of these personal and social reasons have been very keenly felt. It must be remembered, and indeed it is well known, that the rising educational expectations in the Australian community are shared by people in all areas- whether they live in urban areas or in remote areas. The decline in rural incomes means that the number of people who might be able to send their children to independent schools or to metropolitan areas to attend schools is fewer than it used to be.

The Committee’s report pointed out that, in spite of what the experts say, there is an awareness on the part of people generally who live in remote areas that lack of education is a limiting factor in occupational mobility. This takes on a serious emphasis when the economic climate in rural areas is such that it becomes necessary to have to take on another career which very likely would be a non-rural career. I believe that is important to the Bills, and the speeches which are the subject of this debate. Whilst education facilities are provided, and whilst governments may fund educational facilities, it is extremely important in today’s complex society and in a society which I believe will become more complex in the next decade, that opportunity must be provided to all people to choose a second or even a third career or to go into some other area in which they might apply themselves either for economic purposes or for the purpose of personal satisfaction. As the report of the Senate Committee pointed out, isolated children do not have equal educational opportunity with those children who are not isolated. Of course, that is so for a whole variety of reasons.

Emphasis has been placed on the funding of facilities for isolated school children. Of course, the Government has responded to this plea, and there has been an appreciative response from the federal organisation of the Isolated Children’s Parents Association in that regard. As I said earlier, while money is extremely essential it is not the only answer for all phases of education. Indeed, one of the problems that was brought to the attention of the Senate Committee during its inquiry was the restriction in the range of courses available, the inexperience of teachers and, I suppose most importantly of all, the lack of incentive for teachers. There was reference also to the inadequacies of travel allowances and other allowances of that kind. As I said a moment ago, the Government has made a response in regard to those matters and there has been an appreciative recognition of that response. Of course, in a rural and difficult situation I suppose there will always be anomalies and there will also be areas in relation to which this particular response is insufficient.

The only other point that I want to discuss this afternoon is the matter which was the centre of some of the concluding remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. It concerned technical and further education. If honourable senators turn to the Minister’s second reading speech on the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill they will find that the Bill makes available to the States for 1977 more than $79m, of which $3 7m is for capital expenditure and $41m is for recurrent expenditure. Whilst the prime responsibility for technical and further education lies with the States, these amounts are supplementary to what the States provide and are for the purpose of enabling the States to achieve desirable improvements in the effectiveness of technical and further education. Honourable senators will recall that the Kangan report dennes technical and further education to include all programs of education that have a vocational purpose.

I find as I study the area of technical and further education, for which I am an enthusiast, that it is a creative area of what is sometimes described as a ‘non-institutionalised adult educational program’. Maybe it is wider than that. Perhaps that is only a general description. However, surely its aim is to provide an educational strategy and a greater opportunity for development, and to promote and sustain those changes that are necessary in our social and economic scene. I believe that properly developed and administered technical and further education complements very readily all other development strategies in our community. After all, development should never be just a whole series of benefits that are conferred upon a group of people. Rather, technical and further education should be a process by which people acquire a greater mastery over their own destiny. Technical and further education, in its non-formal character, provides a cornerstone for general development, for a lifelong education, for community education, and for the development of human resources. I saw these aspects given particular emphasis only the other day when, on behalf of the Minister, I attended the opening of the South East Community College at Mount Gambier in South Australia. It has a student body of some 4000 people. It also has a very close involvement with the community. It provides a wealth of courses and opportunities and, when all of these are taken up, it will undoubtedly produce the characteristics of which I have just spoken in relation to lifelong community education. It will provide a process by which a community and a people have a greater mastery over their own destiny.

In conclusion I turn to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the area of technical and further education. He moved in these terms:

At the end of motion, add ‘but, the Senate is of the opinion that insufficient resources are being directed into the technical education area ‘.

I think that these words come strangely from the Leader of the Opposition. They come even more strangely in the light of the speech which he made. I presume that when he spoke of the technical education area he was talking about that area of education which we describe as ‘technical and further education’. As mentioned in the Kangan report and in the Minister’s speech, one of the hallmarks of technical and further education is its widespread application and its involvement with the community. It seems to me that that would be almost certainly one of its chief virtues. I take the liberty of telling the Leader of the Opposition that at the opening of the South East Community College at Mount Gambier the keynote of the speech made by the Premier of South Australia, who performed the opening ceremony, was that the whole basis and value and virtue of technical and further education was its community involvement, the benefit it obtained from local awareness, and the benefit and progress which it obtained from cooperation with local government and community organisations. The Government and the Minister at the table are aware of that also.

I think we should point out to the Senate this afternoon that the previous Government reduced the appropriation for this area of education by some $9m from $74m in 1975 to $65m in 1976. In short, the Leader of the Opposition is putting to the Senate this afternoon an amendment to the effect that insufficient money is being allocated for technical and further education, when it was the Government of which he was a member which took money away from the field of technical and further education. Our Government has restored expenditure in that area to the extent of providing $70m for 1 977, an increase of Vh per cent. It may be recalled that of all the increases in expenditure on educational programs, that represents the largest of them all. That is the kind of emphasis which the present Government is placing on the whole field of technical and further education.

The Minister and the Government are not resting at that point. I call the attention of the Senate to the statement made by the Minister in this place on 9 September when he made an announcement in relation to a committee of inquiry into education. Those committees to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks this afternoon made their findings some 15 or 20 years ago. They are the findings upon which the Commonwealth has moved into involvement in education today. They are the basis on which the then Liberal-National Party governments started on the long road of funding, improving and standing with education. Today we are looking ahead into the next 2 decades. The Government has set up a wide ranging inquiry. It has asked for the results of that inquiry to be ready in 2 years so that planning can be put into effect. The Government has asked that account be taken of the relationship between education and the economy, the relationship between education and employment, and all of the groups in our society who require and deserve special educational opportunities.

So it ill becomes the Leader of the Opposition to conclude his speech by saying that there is an uncertainty in the Government’s education program. That is not true. There is a decisiveness and a complete certainty. It ill becomes the Leader of the Opposition to say that the present Government has no commitment to education. Why, the facts outlined in the 8 second reading speeches we are debating today and the figures which I have just quoted as an argument against the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition give an absolute assurance that the Government has a great certainty about education. It has a great commitment to education. For those reasons I support all 8 Bills.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– This afternoon the Senate is debating 8 education Bills. The fact that we are debating so many education Bills indicates quite clearly the major role that the Federal Government now plays in Australian education. It is not a new role. The Government has had this role for a long time. It has been increasing steadily and, in fact, it increased at a rapid pace over the past 3 years. The fact that we are debating 8 education Bills also means that we will have limited debate on each one. Because of this I shall cover certain areas of those Bills and I expect that my colleagues will cover other areas. Some of the remarks I make will be complementary to the remarks that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) in his opening speech on these Bills.

The major role of the Government in education throughout Australia is well indicated if one looks at the expenditure the Government incurs. I have a table which shows the Commonwealth Government outlay on education from the years 1966-67 to 1976-77. It is one of 3 tables I would like to incorporate in Hansard during the course of my speech this afternoon. I now seek leave to incorporate this one.

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

Senator COLSTON:

-I invite honourable senators to look at various aspects of this table. They will see that the outlay on education by the Commonwealth Government increased from $141m in 1966-67 to $l,912m in 1975-76. In other words, it increased by more than 10 times. I use the 1975-76 figures because they are firm figures. If we look at the estimated figure of $2,204m for 1976-77 we will see that the expenditure has increased even more. Perhaps of greater importance in this table is the proportion of the total outlays of the Government which is spent on education. For the year 1966-67 in which the outlay on education was $141m the proportion was 2.5 per cent of the total outlays of the Government. In 1975-76, the last year for which we have final figures, the outlay on education was 8.75 per cent of the total outlays of the Government. There was a steady increase from 1966-67 to 1974-75. In fact, there was a major increase from 1972-73 to 1974-75. In 1975-76 there was a marginal decrease. This was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. The proportion of total outlays which will be spent on education this year is estimated to be about 9 per cent.

I was reminded of the consequences of such outlays on education only last weekend when, Mr Acting Deputy President, I was in your area of Queensland. I noticed in Innisfail, as you have probably noticed, an education resource centre which had been built from Commonwealth funds. It is nowhere near complete but it has had a vast injection of Commonwealth funds and it is playing an important role in the city of Innisfail. Although the Commonwealth Government has increased its outlay on education, not only in terms of total outlay towards education itself but also as a proportion of the total Budget strategy, I believe that there is no room for us to be complacent about the money we are spending on education. There is certainly every reason for us to spend as much as we are spending at the moment and perhaps even more. I now turn to the value for money concept that Senator Davidson mentioned. I think it is important that we, as a responsible Government and a responsible Opposition, should consider this concept. We should be sure that the people who are providing money for education in Australia- the taxpayers- get value for money. If we obtain value for money we will also obtain ever better resources for education.

I said that I wished to incorporate 3 tables in Hansard. I now seek leave to incorporate the second one which shows public expenditure on education as a percentage of gross national product for 4 countries- the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America and Australia.

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

The table read as follows-

Senator COLSTON:

-Even accepting the point that we must take care when looking at percentage figures on education from varying countries, because of the different ways in which they are compiled, it is illuminating to look at the figures for the 4 countries I mentioned. For instance, in the year 1960 the percentage of public expenditure on education as a percentage of gross national product in the United Kingdom was 4.3 per cent; in the U.S.S.R. it was 5.9 per cent; in the U.S.A. it was 4 per cent; and in Australia it was 2.9 per cent. I have shown figures in this table for I960, 1965, 1970, 1971 and 1 972. When one examines the figures one can see that Australia does not compare favourably with any of these countries. Until 1972 there was a backlog in the amount of money spent on education in Australia as a percentage of GNP, compared with the other 3 countries. The argument I wish to develop from this point is that although we may have increased the amount of money we have spent on education, as a percentage of GNP since 1972 there has been, at least in relation to the 3 countries I have mentioned, somewhat of a backlog in the amount of money spent. I concluded the table at 1972 because it was not possible to obtain figures for the other countries beyond 1972. We should not be complacent at this stage and think that the amount of money we are spending is sufficient, and that perhaps when better times come we can allocate more money to education.

I come back to the concept of value for money. I believe that, considering the amount of money we are spending on education, we must continually evaluate our education programs. We must continually ensure that what we are spending our money on does give us the type of educational programs that we require to produce the educated citizen we are looking for in this society. There has been a number of comments recently on the various levels of education in Australia querying whether we are getting the right results. For instance, there has been much debate recently about whether the basic education we are providing at the primary school level is satisfactory. I am of the opinion- and this probably is different from the opinion of many honourable senators- that we are certainly not doing any worse in the primary education sphere. I think that perhaps outside the Senate it is even more marked that people are saying we are not doing well in basic skills. Perhaps we are not doing better than we were in recent years but I do not think we are doing any worse. However, there is no reason why we should not evaluate this criticism and find out for sure what is the situation. In secondary education the debate has been not so much on the basic skills but perhaps on the relevancy of courses which are provided at the secondary education level. In the tertiary field I think the arguments have been mainly in respect of the relevancy of the courses which are available and whether we are providing a surplus of graduates in the various fields not only through universities but also in colleges of advanced education and also whether we should be putting our resources into other areas.

Even though large amounts of money are being provided for education in Australia I believe that there are still some serious deficiencies in specific areas. I think these deficiencies can be somewhat camouflaged if we do not look carefully at specific instances. I do not want to appear as though I am being parochial but I do want to mention some of the aspects of education within the State of Queensland which I represent which show that perhaps we need to spend additional money or there needs to be some evaluation of priorities. In talking about the evaluation of priorities I think it is well to comment that in the field of medical education in my own State of Queensland a report was presented to this Parliament some time ago which talked about the expansion of medical education. It commented on the possibility of medical educational facilities being provided at 2 universities in Queensland which at present do not have them. A somewhat exciting program was put up by the Griffith University, a relatively new university in the Brisbane area. It was exciting because it proposed the establishment of a 3-year clinical medical course. The course was to be restricted to graduates in biological science areas. In other words, once a person had a science degree in biological science he would be able to transfer to the clinical medical course of 3 years duration with some bridging studies in between.

The personnel at the Griffith University were keen to have this started and to work in cooperation with the new hospital at Mt Gravatt and perhaps the Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital. There was also a proposal that educational facilities for medicine be provided at the James Cook University of North Queensland. The proposal was to have teaching in first year subjects at Townsville, the students would go to Brisbane for their pre-clinical subjects and then return to Townsville for the 4th, 5th and 6th years of the course. I mention this because one of the important facets of this report was that the priorities that should be given to medical education in Queensland- indeed, throughout Australia, but I am speaking specifically of the State that I represent- were evaluated and the priorities were laid down. It was stated that a medical school should in fact be established at the James Cook University of North Queensland by 1980 but if this did not eventuate the Univeristy of Queensland should increase its second-year enrolments. However, it was shown that the proposal for a new medical school at the Griffith University should not be supported in the period under review which was to the 1980s. Unfortunately the proposal to establish a medical school at Townsville has now been shelved until the 1980s. This is a good example of how one should look at the priorities in education and make sure that the programs being pursued are in fact worth while.

I would like to mention some aspects of the deficiencies which I think exist in education. I refer to certain aspects of the Queensland University. I have spoken in this place before about the Department of External Studies at the Queensland University and some problems which the external studies program is facing. I have mentioned previously that the External Studies Department now has a 3-weekly mailing list, not a weekly mailing list. In fact over the weekend I was speaking to an external studies student from North Queensland who told me that for the whole of the year lecture notes had been sent to him on only three separate occasions. I am not saying this is the fault of this Government. I am pointing out that this Department has found itself to be in such a position that it has had to make expenditure cuts which have resulted in students not receiving their lecture notes on a weekly basis. I did not intend to pursue this matter at any great length because I had mentioned it before but I would like to take to task in as reasonable way as I can Professor John Univeristy of Queensland should the Director of the Department of External Studies at the Queensland University, who was recently reported as saying that this idea of a 3-weekly mailing list is satisfactory. In the Courier-Mail of 12 October he was reported as saying:

It is true that economy measures within the university have created some difficulties for the department, but many of these are being overcome through the more rational use of resources.

It became necessary, for example, to reduce the frequency of mailings from weekly to three-weekly intervals and, although the new schedule had some teething troubles, since it has settled down there is no evidence that students have been adversely affected. Indeed, student comment suggests that many students prefer the new system.

I suspect that Professor John Laverty meets many more external students than I, but I do meet many external students and his sentiments are certainly not the sentiments that they have expressed to me.

As well as the problems facing the Department of External Studies at the Queensland University there have been problems recently in the Department of Journalism. It is a small department but it has a great number of students. I think it is an important department because, as far as I know, it is the only department within Australia which allows for a major in journalism to be taken. At one stage this year it looked as though the department would fold completely next year. It looked as though no lectures would be available. One lecturer left and was not to be replaced. Another lecturer resigned and the third lecturer- there were only 3 lecturers- was due to go on study leave until next year. I believe, that the department has been rescued but I am not sure to what extent. It has certainly created many problems for students in the Department of Journalism. I am informed also that tutorial staff in the Department of Government will be reduced. I simply mention this as an illustration of the point that I made earlier. The fact that the Commonwealth Government is spending large sums of money on education- does not mean that we can be complacent at this stage about that which we are spending.

I should like to mention some aspects of technical education and to refer specifically to apprentices. In opening the debate for the Opposition on these Bills the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wriedt, spoke about the fact that in the future we may find ourselves in a situation in which we have insufficient skilled tradesmen for our requirements in Australia. If this is so, it is very important that we provide adequate training facilities for apprentices. When I commenced speaking I mentioned that I had 3 tables which I would like to incorporate in Hansard. I refer now to the third table in which I have listed apprenticeship statistics for the years 1970-71 to 1975-76. This shows the number of new indentures and the number of indentures completed in both Queensland and Australia. The Australian figures include those for Queensland. I seek leave to incorporate this table in Hansard.

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

The table read as follows-

Senator COLSTON:

-I thank the Senate. If one examines this table one notes a number of disconcerting aspects. In 1970-71 in Queensland the number of new apprentices was 5272. This dropped marginally in 1971-72 to 5234. It dropped quite drastically in 1972-73, increased again for the next year but drastically dropped for the next 2 years. These reductions in the number of apprentices being taken on for the first year will show up in subsequent years when we have fewer skilled tradesmen entering the workforce. It is interesting also to examine the column which shows the number of indentures completed. There should be a three or four year lapse because of the three or four years that it would take to complete the apprenticeship. It is interesting to note in that column that the number of indentures completed is far lower than the number registered for first year apprentices. This seems to indicate to me that the dropout rate for apprentices is far too high. I shall not speak about specific State figures in this debate but if we do inspect State figures we will find that the statistics indicate that the drop-out rate is quite different from State to State. There are probably some educational implications. One of the educational implications that we can draw from the drop-out rate is that perhaps the educational provisions for apprentices are not adequate. I do not say that this is the only problem. There are certainly a number of other factors which cause drop-out rates in apprentices but an educational problem exists, even if it is only a problem of counselling.

I consider that that is an area that we can look at particularly in the technical education field. We need excellence in the area of technical education. We need excellence in that area as much as we need it in the colleges of advanced education and in universities. I am sure that all of us, if we want a tradesman to do a job for us, hope that he has been trained as best he possibly can be within the educational system in Australia. But looking beyond our personal expectations, the Australian people themselves require skilled tradesmen. They require tradesmen who have had the best possible opportunity for education in Australia. For this reason, I am delighted to be able to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. In conclusion, I should like to say that education in Australia, as far as this Government is concerned, is now a major business. As I pointed out, I do not think that we have any reason to be complacent in this area. We should be doing all we possibly can to make sure that education in Australia receives the funds that it deserves and that the youngsters who are looking for a sound education receive it because this Commonwealth Government has taken the care that it needs to take in this area.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I rise to support these 8 Bills which are being debated cognately by the Senate and which, in broad terms, give effect to the Government’s initiatives in relation to education during 1976-77. 1 do not propose to deal in detail with the matters raised by the Bills but they do afford an opportunity of looking at the various areas of education- in fact, the whole field of education- just to see where we are going. I think perhaps the starting point in a debate of this nature is to look at the position of education when our Government assumed office after the December 1975 elections. The position in the education field at that stage was chaotic and consistent with the position in a number of other areas of government activity at that time.

Two major problems confronted the Government in the field of education. One of these was that the triennial funding had been terminated at short notice prior to the Hayden Budget being introduced and the other was a reduction of $105m in funding for the year 1975-76 compared with the previous year. I think, when we take these and other factors into account, the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) is to be congratulated on the order he has restored from the previous chaos. We now have a return to triennial funding and an orderly forward program in the education area. After examining the 4 different areas of education, as represented by the 4 different commissions in that field, I think every fair-minded Australian would recognise and acknowledge that the Minister has a very difficult and delicate task in balancing the needs of the 4 areas because a need can always be demonstrated when one is dealing with government funds. This is true in the education field.

I should like to refer briefly to the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition in the Senate asking that further resources be directed to the area of technical education. As I have already said, the Minister for Education has a difficult task. Whatever he did, if he were to favour the university area or the advanced education area, he would be criticised equally in either case. When I quote some figures in a few moments I think it will be realised that they show that the Minister has given a larger percentage of funds in the field of technical and further education than in the other 3 areas.

I think it is worth stating at this stage of the debate that the honourable member for KingsfordSmith (Mr Lionel Bowen), who led the debate in the other place, was critical of the Government for its failure to allot more money to the university field. He spent the first part of his speech saying just that- that more money should have been allocated. When one is looking at the situation in relation to total expenditure as the Government is, one must realise that there are priorities. As I said in an earlier debate in the Senate relating to education, despite the tight financial position we were able to increase the actual funds for each of the Commissions. So that the figures can be on record, I shall quote them. For the 1977 calendar year the total expenditure proposed is $ 1,537m, as against a figure of $ 1,490m in 1976. The individual breakdown of the figures shows that for the year 1976 the Universities Commission has a proposed expenditure of $542m, whereas in 1977 the amount will be $555m. In the case of the Commission on Advanced Education, its expenditure for 1976 is $385m, as against a figure of $404m proposed for 1977. For the Technical and Further Education Commission the expenditure for 1976 is to be $65m, and that is to be increased to $70m for 1977. That is quite a significant increase of some 14 per cent. In the case of the Schools Commission, the figure for 1976 is $498m, which is to increase to $508m in 1977. So there has been an increase in all the areas. I think it is perhaps unfair to select one area of the four and to say that the Minister has not done that justice. It is reasonably obvious to any intelligent person that if we were to increase expenditure on technical and further education this money would have to be taken from one of the other 3 fields. On balance, I think we cannot be critical of the apportionment which has been made in these areas.

I want to refer briefly to a number of matters relating to each of these 4 areas of education. I shall deal first with the university area. I think it fair to say that when university education became free there was a considerable upsurge in the number of people who sought to embark on university courses. I think this was a good thing and I am not critical of it in any way. But the point must be taken now that we have had some years of experience of free tertiary education and people in the education field should be looking ahead to make certain that positions will be available for graduates after they qualify. A number of professions are now becoming overcrowded. It is of particular importance that a student, before he or she embarks on a university course, should look at the job opportunity at the end of the line. In the case of 90 per cent of people taking tertiary or university courses, they will be depending on the qualifications they get for their livelihood after they qualify.

I know that in my own profession of law, which I still practise occasionally, figures show that by 1980 the legal profession in Australia will be grossly overcrowded having regard to the number of people at present embarking on the course and the expected output of graduates throughout Australia. I saw the ratio of members of the legal profession per head of population the other day. I have forgotten the figure but it was alarmingly low. I think that we will find that this situation will obtain in other professions in that there will just not be enough work available in the particular professional field for all the persons qualified. I mention briefly the profession of architecture which is at the moment seriously overcrowded and also certain engineering courses which are overcrowded.

Senator Georges:

– Zoologists.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– Thank you, geologists, yes. I sound only a note of warning. I think also that we should look- if I might digress- at the population growth figures which show that the population of Australia is almost reaching ZPG- zero population growth. Understandably the migrant program is light on at the moment. This is because of the unemployment situation. I agree with my friends opposite that it would be wrong while we have a bad unemployment situation in Australia to embark on a major migration program. But all these factors, I suggest, will lead to some reduction in the demand on university facilities.

I make a brief comment in relation to colleges of advanced education. I note with interest that the Government supports the proposals of the Commission on Advanced Education for a review of assistance to non-government teachers’ colleges. The Minister for Education has stated that he proposes to issue a request in specific terms to the Commission on Advanced Education to conduct a review and to recommend on the assistance which might be required. I congratulate the Minister for that initiative.

I turn now to the field of technical and further education. The first comment I make in relation to that field, in the context of the amendment which has been moved, is that it is primarily a State field of education. This is an area in which the States operate and the Commonwealth’s contribution is by way of additional funding. But I think it worth noting that in this financial year capital funds will be provided by the Commonwealth to permit a start to be made on the construction of four new major colleges- one at Mount Druitt in New South Wales; two in Victoria, one at Dandenong and one at Newport; and one at Mount Gravatt in Queensland. The

Minister has also stated that work on the construction of other colleges in all States will continue and planning for future colleges will proceed. I also note the Minister’s statement that $200,000 has been made available for programs to be carried out by non-government agencies such as programs designed to improve literacy and numeracy among adults. I suggest that this is a pleasing step forward.

I want to say a few words also about the situation in relation to apprentices. This was mentioned by Senator Colston who spoke earlier. I refer the Senate to the excellent summary by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) in the debate in the other place of the chronological history of the apprenticeship movement from the year 2100 BC, through the years of the Industrial Revolution in England, to the present in Australia. His review indicates that in the apprenticeship area there is a need for great improvement. It will be in the context of a combined effort by State and Federal governments. That is the only way I think any practical result will accrue. I have a figure, which I will quote, relating to the Victorian position last year. There were 10 000 unsuccessful applicants for apprenticeship. This figure, I think, is a vivid illustration of the urgent need to do something about making apprenticeships available for students who seek them.

In certain areas of Australia today, despite the high rate of unemployment, there is a shortage of qualified personnel and skilled labour. One of the reasons for the shortage is the depressed economic conditions through which the country passed in recent times and out of which it is now hopefully coming. Employers were unable to support apprentices in the system. I look to some joint initiative with the States by which every student who wishes to be apprenticed will be accommodated. It may be necessary to subsidise employers who, because of their financial position, would not otherwise employ apprentices. We must look at the situation in the context of the present employment situation. Large numbers of young people are unemployed. I know the Government is looking at certain initiatives in this area, in co-operation with State governments.

I refer briefly to the Schools Commission area. It is worth noting that the Government has accepted the Commission’s recommendation that the 6 existing programs be maintained in 1977. These are set out in detail in the Minister’s statement of 4 November. I will not quote” them. I refer briefly to a number of proposals in relation to future plans for non-government schools, as indicated by the Minister in that recent statement. The Government’s policy is to provide basic per capita grants for all pupils in nongovernment schools, at the same time maintaining higher grants for schools in greater need. It is implicit in the Government’s policy to encourage parental choice of school. The Government has accepted the Schools Commission recommendation that the level of grants for non-government schools be linked automatically in future years to per pupil expenditure levels in government schools. The Minister stated that the Government was not satisfied with the present differential ratio between pupils in government schools and pupils in non-government schools. For the future, this tying in of the non-government schools with the per capita expenditure on government schools will at least ensure that the gap does not widen. The Minister stated that this situation will be remedied as finance and circumstances permit.

The other matter to which I refer briefly in this context is the Government’s decision to introduce a scheme which will enable nongovernment schools to plan to commence capital projects which have been approved for assistance under the Capital Works Program in 1 978 and 1979. This move will contribute significantly to the economic and orderly forward planning of building projects. One further recommendation of the Schools Commission which the Government is adopting is the one related to guarantees of loans raised by non-government schools to finance construction of approved building projects. As the Minister said, legislation will be introduced in the autumn session of 1 977 to give effect to this situation.

The Minister is to be congratulated for the initiative in appointing the Williams committee of inquiry which was announced recently. It will undertake a comprehensive review of the whole area. Senator Davidson referred to the Martin inquiry and to another inquiry, both of which were held 10 years or more ago, into specific areas of education. The Williams committee will be the first fully comprehensive inquiry into the whole field of education. The announcement by the Minister is consistent with his performance in the portfolio since the Government assumed office.

There are areas of concern in education apart from the financial aspects on which I have dwelt largely today. One statistic which came to my notice recently related to the time spent by children in Australia watching television. I refer to an article by Kevin Tindall, Director of the

Audio- Visual Centre at Sydney Teachers College, and Mr David Reid, a lecturer at the Audio-Visual Centre at Sydney Teachers College. It is interesting to note the statistics:

During 1975 the average Australian school child watched 218 hours of advertising on television. This was part of a total viewing commitment of 1095 hours- more than 20 hours each week. The average child who left school in 1975 spent 15 120 hours in the classroom as against 17 520 hours in front of the television set.

I suggest that among the various matters which might be looked at by the Williams committee under its very wide terms of reference could be the impact of television on children, particularly children of primary school age. I congratulate the Minister on his excellent work in the field of education, exemplified, I think, by the appointment of the Williams committee. While we acknowledge that the present system is not perfect- if it were, there would be no need for the Williams inquiry- we at least have triennial funding, forward planning and a situation in which people in the education field know the Government’s intentions clearly and unmistakably for some time ahead. I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– These 8 Bills represent the Government’s program for funding education, via the 4 education commissions, for the next financial year. The Opposition does not oppose these Bills, although the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt), has moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading. We consider that there has not been proper provision in these Bills for technical education. In the Committee stage the Leader of the Opposition will be moving 2 amendments to the Bill relating to the Schools Commission. Because there has been such criticism by members of the Government, by other sections of the community and by some sections of the media, of the rapidly increased expenditure on education under the Labor Government, I refer to the latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publication on public expenditure in education which was published in July 1 976. 1 do this because I think it is important to get an international perspective on the matter of funding of education programs and to get some kind of comparison between Australia and similar countries with respect to expenditure on education before we start saying that there has been too much or too little expenditure on this vital area of social policy.

The study recently conducted by the OECD found that all OECD countries had increased their expenditure on education in recent times.

The report discerned from the various countriesthere are developed and developing countries in the OECD group- 2 major different objectives by countries increasing their expenditure on education. I wish to quote from the OECD’s summary of those 2 objectives. It extrapolates also into the future in regard to education expenditure. I quote from page 72 of the report to which I am referring. The first aspect is:

If a major preoccupation in the years to come is going to be with output and productivity, then compensatory education can help by allowing a fuller use of the potential of under-privileged groups, pre-school education by freeing mothers for work, and recurrent education (whatever the short-run output losses) by making higher education more responsive to the needs of the economy and by spreading learning through a larger share of the population.

Secondly, a different type of objective was described in these terms:

If, on the other hand, society will to some extent be placing less emphasis on the aims of faster quantitative growth, and will be giving more attention to qualitative issues such as equality and cultural values, these types of educational programs, and notably positive discrimination in favour of disadvantaged groups, could make a positive contribution.

So, whichever objective a government haseither that of increasing productivity or that of working towards equality- there is a case to be made for increased expenditure on education, particularly in the area of compensatory education for disadvantaged groups.

It should be well known to all members of the Senate that, in its early period in office, the Labor Government had the second objective that I have quoted most clearly in mind, that is, the objective of increasing equality, of diffusing cultural values, of assisting disadvantaged groups via compensatory funding, to make more of a contribution to society. It does seem to me that the present Government may be more interested in the first objective, that is, of increasing productivity and linking the education system more directly to the requirements of the market. I say that it may be the case that the Government has this objective because, really, the Government has not made its education policy very clear. The Minister for Education, Senator Carrick, has engaged in a great deal of criticism of Labor’s education program and has raised again and again in this chamber the claim that it was the Labor Government that started the erosion of education programs by reducing financial support for them. But, despite all these negative comments and assertions by the Minister for Education to which we have been subjected in the course of this Parliament, there really has been very little by way of a positive statement on just what this Government intends to achieve by funding education and how the contraction in education funding that we see in the Budget that was brought down recently by the Treasurer of this Government, Mr Lynch, can be related to whatever objectives the Government may have in education and the amount of money and resources that it is prepared to allocate to education. I do hope that the Minister, when he participates in this debate, might say something positive about what his Government intends to do in education rather than just continue in a tirade of abuse against the inadequacies, as he alleges them to be, of the Whitlam Government in this respect.

There have been some changes that we can observe very clearly in the approach of the present Government to education. I suppose the most serious of them has been the introduction of what the Government chooses to call the rolling triennium system of funding. Although I and many of my colleagues have stated this before, I think it is most important to state again that the Labor Minister for Education, Mr Beazley, did not cease the triennial system of funding completely. It is true that, in the 1975-76 Budget, there was a one-year suspension of the triennial program. But as evidence of the fact that the Labor Government never intended triennial funding to finish completely, I point out that, at the same time as it announced that there would be a year’s suspension of triennial funding and that there would be just a 1976 allocation for education, the Labor Government announced also that the 4 education commissions were to be invited to come up with new triennial reports, that is, for the triennium 1977-1979. This the commissions subsequently did. If that fact is taken into account- that is, that a fresh triennial program was called for and provided by the 4 commissions- I think it can be seen that there is no basis for the claim that the Labor Government brought triennial funding to an end.

Nor is there any basis for the Government’s claim that it has restored triennial funding. What it has done is to introduce this concept of rolling triennial funding, which is really just annual funding with some vague and tentative indication of the level of funding which might come in the following 2 years. It seems that commissions may not make firm purchasing commitments and so on on the basis of a projected 2 per cent increase in funds in 1978 and 1979. If that is the case, there is no firm commitment by the present Government for funding levels for 1978 and 1979. If there is no firm commitment to those 2 years, there is no triennial system of funding; there is an annual system of funding with some vague projections as to the following 2 years. Of course, every year the system will be revised. So, education administrators will really only know from year to year what resources they will have at their disposal and what planning they will be able to undertake.

I wish to address some remarks to the Minister for Education who, I am pleased to see, is in the chamber, about his claims that there was a reduction of federal support for education in the Hayden Budget of 1975-76. 1 would say bluntly that there was no reduction in federal support for education in that Budget; there was an increase. The total figure allocated for education in the Hayden Budget was $ 1908.2m for the 1975-76 financial year- an increase of $237m over actual expenditure for the 1974-75 financial year. Those facts are beyond dispute. The falsity of the claim that the Labor Government intended to reduce its expenditure on education should no longer be a matter for dispute.

There were other increases in the Hayden Budget. I intend to mention some of them as they have been ignored or denied in previous debates and comments in this chamber. First, the expenditure on capital projects that had already been undertaken in education was continued. Secondly, recurrent expenditure was continued at a level sufficient to maintain existing standards and existing staff-student ratios. Thirdly, the proportion in 1975 of each age group proceeding to tertiary education was to be maintained for the following year, and sufficient funds were allocated for that purpose. Fourthly, the triennial system of funding was not entirely abandoned, as I have just spelt out, but there was commencement of planning for the new triennium from 1977 to 1979.

As well as those substantial efforts to maintain and increase education expenditure there were specific increases in the funds allocated for student assistance. There was a specific and quite large increase in the area of curriculum development. The National Curriculum Development Centre was set up and funds allocated for research projects in curricula. There was a specific increase for migrant education. There was a large specific increase for other kinds of educational research. There were specific increases for Aboriginal education. So in all these areas there were increases, not decreases and not even simply a static situation.

During the period of Labor Administration expenditure on education doubled nearly twice. I would like to mention some figures to give substance to that claim. In 1 972-73 expenditure on education was $443m; in 1973-74 it was $859m; in 1974-75 it was $ 1,672m; and in 1975-76 it was $ 1 .908m. As well as that, during the period of the Labor Administration cost indexation of capital and recurrent grants was adopted for universities, colleges and schools and was agreed upon for technical and further education. In answer to the critics who say that such an increase was extravagant, unjustified and so on, I refer to the gross national product figures for comparable countries. In 1971-72, when we were coming to the end of 23 years of coalition rule, Australia spent 4.7 per cent of GNP on education, compared with 8.9 per cent in Canada, 6. 1 per cent in the United Kingdom, 7.3 per cent in the United States of America and 7.9 per cent in the Netherlands. In 1972-73 Australia’s figure was increased to 4.8 per cent, in 1973-74 to 5 per cent, in 1974-75 to 6.2 per cent, and in 1975-76 6.4 per cent was to have been spent on education. This was a rapid increase and yet one that cannot be called unjustified in world terms as it still left us quite significantly behind countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

The achievements of the Labor Government in the field of education cannot simply be stated in terms of money. At this point I agree with those who say that more than money is needed to improve the education system. Money is needed, but more things than money are needed. There were other achievements. There was a tremendous impetus in school education caused mainly by the setting up of the Australian Schools Commission with its various national co-ordinated and innovative programs. There was a great improvement in morale in the teaching profession generally and in the school teaching profession in particular brought about by the new recognition of the national importance of education.

There was change. When I say there was change, I do not wish to be interpreted as suggesting that change for change’s sake is something to be admired; but there was necessary change. The education system was failing to equip school leavers with skills they needed to be competent in subsequent areas of work and in life generally. We have heard a lot about that in this session of Parliament. We have heard a lot about what are claimed to be growing illiteracy rates. We have heard a lot about the unsuitability of many school leavers for employment, but I would point out that as the period of the Labor Administration was so short and as the stage people are at when they leave school is a culmination of their entire school experience, it is quite inaccurate and quite distorted to look at any faults and inadequacies in current school leavers and say that they came about during the period of the Labor Administration. If, for example, there is serious illiteracy amongst school leavers, and 1 am not sure there is, then that illiteracy would be the culmination of their entire school experience.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator RYAN:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I was attempting to establish, I hope beyond dispute, that the Labor Government had increased education funding at every stage and in all forms. Even in the 1975 Budget- the Hayden Budget- there had still been an increase in funds available for education and not a reduction, as has been claimed by honourable senators opposite. I was also saying that, apart from the very great increase in money resources that the Labor Government put into education, it put other things into education such as a greatly improved impetus, a greatly increased morale and the circumstances in which constructive and useful changes in education environments and techniques could be brought about.

One of the other achievements of the approach of the Labor Government to the funding of education- I think that this was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wriedtwas that finally we were able to solve the bitter sectarian dispute over State aid. We resolved that by establishing a very simple and, I think, very right principle that funding of all kinds of education and funding of schools and students in schools should be not on the basis of whether they were government or private schools but on the basis of need. I think that that principle was widely accepted in the Australian community, and accepted with a great deal of relief after the many years of bitterness that had revolved around the question of the rights of nongovernment schools to support by public moneys.

The concept of funding on a needs basis was embodied in the earlier legislation put up by the Labor Government and embodied in the Karmel report from which the first programs of the Schools Commission were established. It is an unfortunate historic fact that the first attempt by the Labor Government to revise funding of schools completely on the basis of need- I am referring to the States Grants (Schools) Act of 1973- had to be modified to a slight extent because of the obstruction of the coalition parties in the Senate. They were not happy that funding was to be carried out entirely on the basis of need, which would have meant that some of our richest schools would have lost the level of public support that they had been receiving to that point. Because they held the States Grants (Schools) Bill 1973 to ransom over this point there was of necessity a slight modification by the Labor Government to its newly developed principle of funding according to need. However, apart from that modification, which meant that category A schools would continue to receive the level of funding that they have been receiving previously, the concept of funding according to need was established and developed during the subsequent 2Vi years.

I am unhappy to see, particularly in the statement made today by the Minister for Education, that there is an attempt at eroding that very important principle that was established. I am referring to the remark that he made in respect of funding of non-government schools. I certainly do not want to open the State aid debate again, and I think that I speak for all people in the Opposition when I say that we approve the increases in per capita grants to the most needy schools from $223 to $229. We approve those increases because they are diverting funds to the most needy schools. We have no quarrel with that. However, if we look at the overall proportioning of funds between government and nongovernment schools we find that the nongovernment schools are having their allocation increased by 24 per cent while the government schools ‘s allocation is being increased by 11.5 per cent. The justification given by the Government for this new balance in the funding of education is the necessity of making the exercise of choice by parents a financial possibility. Whilst we in the Opposition do not dispute that parents and students if at all possible should exercise choice, we would disagree with the present Government as to the extent to which that choice should be subsidised from the public purse when it is being subsidised at the expense of a poorer sector of education. I do not want to proceed with remarks on this matter because it is very easy to be misinterpreted. I repeat that we have no dispute with funds going to non-government schools in need but we would question the return to the permanent maintenance of the per capita funding of schools in the highest category of resource allocation.

Also with respect to the funding of schools, we are very disappointed to notice that no provision has been made for any devolution of financial responsibilities to schools themselves or to school boards. The Leader of the Opposition will be moving an amendment in order to provide such a devolution. It is not only we in the Opposition who are disappointed; parent and teacher organisations also have expressed their disappointment over this matter to the Government and to the Opposition. It strikes me as being contradictory for the Government to claim that its policies are ‘concerned to encourage community participation’ when it has made no provision for such community participation in its allocation of funds. When the previous States Grants (Schools) Bill went through the Senate earlier this year the Opposition moved an amendment to provide that a small proportion of the recurrent funds that go to schools be set aside for use at the discretion of the school or the governing body of the school, one with community representation, for which the phrase ‘school board’ is the most general description. The Government rejected that amendment then and it has not put up such an amendment now. I think that the Government’s failure to make such a provision- that provision was recommended in several Schools Commission reports- indicates that its talk of encouraging community involvement is merely so much rhetoric.

I also find it hard to understand why the Government resists the idea of giving properly and democratically elected school boards a small amount of financial autonomy when both sides of the chamber have been happy to give to the private school sector almost complete autonomy in the handling of large amounts of government funds. If the governing boards of private schools have established themselves as competent and responsible in the administration of funds I see no reason why the present Government should not expect that the governing boards of government schools would be similarly responsible and competent. I believe that such a provision would increase parent and community involvement. It would increase the awareness of the community about the cost involved in education and the difficulties involved in the administration of education, and would generally lead to a more informed and aware education community.

The other matter on which we will be moving an amendment is that relating to the opportunity provided in the legislation for State governments to transfer Federal moneys from the capital category to the recurrent category. Whilst we in the Opposition understand that this may be a sensible or feasible measure in some cases, we believe that such a change in the use of money should be carried out only after consultation with the Schools Commission. If it is not carried out in consultation with the Schools Commission it will undermine the national program of the Schools

Commission, the national objective of the Schools Commission, which is to ensure that all schools in Australia reach a reasonable level in a specific length of time. If State governments can freely alter their use of money allocated for specific purposes, then there is no guarantee that desirable targets in education- I refer to those outlined in the original Karmel report- will ever be reached. So I suggest that the failure of the Government to provide for consultation with the Schools Commission in this matter is a further undermining of the program of funding according to need and a further undermining of the objective of bringing all schools in Australia up to a reasonable level within a given period.

I turn briefly to the question of universities. The Minister for Education has claimed on many occasions that there will be a 2 per cent growth rate for universities. I point out yet again that that 2 per cent growth rate will be absorbed almost entirely by new institutions such as the Deakin University, the Griffith University and the Murdoch University, or by new schools in existing universities, such as the Australian Graduate School of Management at the University of New South Wales, the School of Medicine at the University of Newcastle, the School of Medicine at the Flinders University, and the School of Veterinary Studies at Murdoch University. By establishing those new schools- we are not critical of the fact that they have been established- we are setting up a drain on the resources made available to the Universities Commission, which will, I think, absorb all of the 2 per cent growth in the provision and which will leave the established universities in a very difficult position indeed.

While I am on the subject of universities, I mention briefly the question of tertiary allowances, although I realise that the Government’s new arrangements for tertiary allowances are not contained in the legislation currently before us. When we talk about the justification for putting public moneys into universities, we must also talk about those people who have access to those universities. While we have a situation in which the poorer students are forced through lack of proper support by student allowances to drop out of universities, we have a much poorer case for trying to justify the large expenditure of government moneys on universities. If universities are not widely and freely accessible to those who are able and motivated in the community, then they have much less call on public funds than they would if they were available to all properly qualified and motivated people. I hope that in the ensuing months the Government will revise its decision with regard to tertiary allowances, make the means test a little more generous and a little more realistic, and ensure that no student is barred from tertiary studies because of lack of funds alone.

When we get to the area of technical and further education, we get to an area which has been controversial in this chamber. The Minister for Education has claimed that last year there was a reduction in Federal support by the Labor Government for technical and further education. By way of correcting those charges, I point out that during the period of the Labor Government expenditure on technical and further education increased by 350 per cent- and most justified it was. Enrolments increased from 400 000 to 745 000. Another very important measure introduced by the Labor Government was that which made technical and further education free. I think there is a causal relationship between the decision to make technical and further education free and the rapid increase in the number of enrolments. Although the fees charged by technical and further education institutions were not high -perhaps there are people in the Senate who would not believe that they would be beyond the reach of anybody- in fact, they were a deterrent to many people to undertake technical studies.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– In supporting these 8 Bills dealing with the Commonwealth Government’s support for education, I begin by saying that education is probably the most fundamental service provided by or supported to varying degrees by governments. Clearly the quality of the nation that we build will probably depend to a greater extent on the quality of the education provided than on any other single factor. So it is clearly a matter about which neither governments nor the community can be complacent. I suggest that there is a perennial problem with such matters, and that is the question of providing a most effective system of education within the limits of the resources available to governments and to the community generally. I therefore begin by simply referring to the total expenditure on the 4 areas of education in 1976 and 1977. This year expenditure on education will amount to about $1.49 billion, and it is estimated that next year expenditure in these 4 areas of education will increase to $1.54 billion, providing for real growth, after inflation is taken into account, of about 3.2 per cent. That, I think, is consistent with the statements made by the Minister for

Education (Senator Carrick), including the statement that he made on 4 November in which he said:

The Government has no intention of retreating from its undertaking to support real growth in the education programs on which the commissions make recommendations.

I think these 8 Bills support that undertaking quite clearly. It contrasts, for example, with the reduction in the 1975 Budget and for the 1976 calendar year of $105m in funds for the education commissions. In 1977, as a result of the 1976-77 Budget, expenditure on those commissions will increase by $47m. I add in passing that that is also consistent with recently announced increases in tertiary education assistance scheme allowances, which range roughly from 24 per cent to about 40 per cent.

I turn briefly to the question of schools. Expenditure on schools in 1977 is estimated at $508m, which is an increase of approximately $ 10m on the figure for 1976. This represents a 2 per cent real growth rate for next year. I think one of the most important questions to which all those involved in or interested in education must address themselves is that of the employment of school leavers. The Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training which the Government has now established will play an important role in assessing some of the problems and perhaps suggesting some of the solutions to obviously serious problems which are developing in our society and in our educational system. I think, therefore, it is important and perhaps useful to quote the summary of the purpose of that committee of inquiry. It was given by the Minister for Education as follows:

The Committee will deal with a number of fundamental issues related to education. In particular, the Committee will examine the whole field of post-secondary education. It will also examine the broader problem of the relationship between education and the labour market. In the latter area the Committee will be asked to expand its review into secondary education as appropriate.

I think the last point will be a particularly important part of the role played by that Committee if the money which is being allocated to schools is to be in the longer term most effectively used in the interests of the community as a whole.

The estimated expenditure on universities for 1977 is $546.1m, which again represents a 2 per cent real increase in contrast with the reduction in expenditure of $21 m in 1976 compared with that of the previous year. One important issue relating to university education is the growing problem of the potential over-supply of graduates. That is already occurring in some areas. In recent weeks senior members of the legal profession in Australia have expressed their concern that within a few years they will be faced with a serious problem of over-supply. That is a problem which has already occurred in a number of European countries and in North America. When we are looking at these large sums of money which are being put into education, that is one problem which we have to take very seriously indeed and which has to be examined. Universities are particularly important because, in many ways, they are the source of the most significant research done in Australia. We will have to look at the relative emphasis placed on universities as a source of graduates and as the base for Australia’s research efforts, because research work is obviously vital to our national development. It is a matter that needs to be looked at more closely so that research in many areas in Australia, including that carried out at universities, is given greater emphasis. When we consider the problem of an over-supply of graduates, there may be a need for some re-emphasis in our approach to university education.

It is significant that the real increase in spending on advanced education in 1977 compared with 1976 will, in fact, be 5 per cent, with expenditure estimated at $4 1 5m next year. This is an increase of some $20m on the figure for 1976. 1 now turn to an area which is, in some ways, related to advanced education. I think it is the most significant area in the current consideration of education in Australia. It is the field of technical and further education. The expenditure for 1977 is estimated at $79m which is a 7 ½ per cent real increase- again, this is significant- on expenditure for 1976. It is also worth noting that expenditure was, in fact, reduced, from $74m in 1975 to $64m in 1976. The increase in 1977 is justified and I think it is urgently required. The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) said in his statement on this subject:

This gives effect to the recommendations relating to 1977 contained in the report of the Technical and Further Education Commission for the triennium 1977-79.

As the Minister noted in his statement, it is recognised that the primary responsibility for technical and further education rests with the States and the Commonwealth effort, in effect, is supplementary to the efforts of the States. It is important not only that the Commonwealth continue to increase its emphasis on technical and further education as it has in this Budget, but also that other governments do likewise. This is an area in which Australia faces potential shortages of technical skills, particularly in the near future. It is an area to which we must give increasing attention.

The Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training is also to take into account the growing recognition of the importance of technical and further education. That applies not only to this country but also to many others. But our first interest obviously must be with Australia. It is worth recalling what the Minister said on 9 September when he was announcing the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training because it is relevant to the importance of technical and further education:

One important reason for this review is the changing structure of post-secondary education. These developments have raised questions about the most appropriate allocation of responsibilities between the different sectors of postsecondary education. Boundaries between these sectors have become blurred. Particularly because of the establishment of separate commissions in post-secondary education there has grown up a tendency to treat the universities, the colleges of advanced education and institutions for technical and further education in isolation from each other. There is a need for the roles of these various institutions to be clarified. More than that, there is a need to consider how postsecondary education as a whole relates to the needs of individuals and to the linkages between education and employment.

That emphasises the importance of all aspects of post-secondary or tertiary education but particularly technical and further education. This is an area in which Australia may well, within a few years, face a serious shortage of skills, a shortage which can have significant economic implications for the nation and one which we should now be doing everything in our power to avoid. The committee of inquiry which has been established will obviously have relevance to the growth and development of technical and further education and its role along with other post-secondary education in Australia. I hope that in the future technical education in this country is given a higher status which is more in accord with other tertiary and post-secondary institutions so that more people are attracted to technical education as a means of ensuring that Australia builds up its store of technical and related skills.

It is worth noting that the largest area of real increase in the Government’s education budget for 1977 is, in fact, in the area of technical and further education. I will say no more about the proposed amendment except to note that in the previous year there was a reduction in expenditure compared with a substantial increase this year. The terms of reference and the purposes of the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training indicate the importance that the Government attaches to this area and related areas of education. The real increase in expenditure on technical and further education for 1977 further emphasises the commitment of the

Government to ensure that technical education is given the support it needs for Australia to build up the store of technical skills which will be required in the future.

I mention in passing that recurrent funds for technical and further education in the Australian Capital Territory have increased by 3 1.5 per cent this year. This represents an increase of about $1.5m. Funds for professional teaching staff in TAFE institutions have increased by 47 per cent in the Capital Territory. The number of ancillary staff will be increased in 1977 by about 8 per cent. This again reflects the priority given by the Government to technical and further education, both in the national capital and in the nation as a whole. I make the point also that the technical and further education system in the Capital Territory is currently in the process of transferring from the New South Wales education system to the Commonwealth system. All these factors indicate the emphasis being placed by the present Government on education as an important area of community development; as a means of building up skills within the community which will be required in the future; as a means of providing greater choice and freedom for individuals as they expand their knowledge and therefore their ability to make choices of employment within the community. In concluding, I think it might be appropriate to refer to a summary of the Government’s objectives in education. In referring to these on 9 September the Minister for Education said:

These include widening educational opportunity, including access to education for those with the ability, but lacking the means; expanding educational and occupational choice; developing quality and excellence in all spheres of education and encouraging community participation in education and training matters. It is frequently said that we live in a society experiencing rapid change. Our educational system has a central role in increasing the capacity of people to adapt to change. This involves not merely increasing understanding of the nature of change. It includes also providing opportunities for re-entry into formal education, for the updating of old skills or the acquisition of new skills relevant to new needs and new demands.

That summaries the import of the Bills before the House. I therefore have pleasure in supporting them.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– I rise to support the amendment which the Opposition has moved with respect to technical and further education. In doing so, I will quote one of what I think are the most important guidelines in this technical age. It comes from the report of the Technical and Further Education Commission:

Australia does not possess sufficient skilled manpowereven during the current economic recessions which is characterised by high unemployment. This national problem is aggravated by a fall in the numbers of skilled immigrants and too few Australians undergoing skill training.

I maintain that too few Australians are undergoing skilled training because of the failure of the Federal and State governments, especially the governments in Victoria and the Federal governments prior to December 1972. One of the ways in which a nation can achieve a skilled manpower force is to get a number of its young people into apprenticeships. That was one way in which in the past we achieved a skilled manpower force and it is one which the Victorian government and the Federal government failed to take up. Employers are reluctant even now because of the economic situation to take on apprentices but even in the buoyant conditions m years gone by the number of apprenticeships that have been taken up in Victoria has been a scandal. None of those responsible- employers, the Victorian Department of Education or the Apprenticeship Commission in Victoria- can escape the blame for that position.

Employers resented apprentices for some years. Employers could always find someone to do the job. They resented youngsters having time off for training. They resented youngsters having time off to go to technical school and they resented the time journeymen spent in training those youngsters. But at the same time these same employers were not loath to charge full journeymen’s rates for the work apprentices did. So if a person’s car went into the garage and an apprentice motor mechanic worked on the car the employer who owned the garage was not loath to charge the owner of the car the full journeyman’s rates for the work the apprentice did.

The Apprenticeship Commission in Victoria is, in my opinion, very open to criticism because it has done very little for a long time to protect apprentices and to advise apprentices as to the best course of action they could take. The Commission made very little complaint about the conditions under which apprentices worked. It did very little about the fact that the number of apprenticeships being applied for were falling off. It did very little about pressuring employers to take on more apprentices in the areas in which they should have taken them. It did absolutely nothing about increasing the number of opportunities for girls in the field of apprenticeship and it did nothing about the lack of school facilities or the distances that apprentices in Victoria had to travel to take on apprenticeship training.

One of the areas which the Apprenticeship Commission was supposed to oversee was the area of protecting apprentices against sacking by employers. After all, an apprenticeship is an agreement between the parents and the employer to take on an apprentice and teach him the trade until he becomes a journeyman. If an employer wants to get rid of an apprentice he is supposed to find another employer to take on the apprentice. There was case after case in Victoria, because the Apprenticeship Commission did nothing about this situation, of youngsters being sacked- literally sacked although the Act says that apprentices cannot be sacked- because their employers said they no longer wanted them, but the Commission did nothing about finding someone to take over the apprenticeships of those young persons.

The Department of Education stands condemned because it allowed the facilities for apprenticeship training to run down and run down very badly. Instructors in many areas at technical schools in Victoria were struggling to teach apprentices modern techniques with outmoded equipment. For instance, in plumbing while the world has moved on and plumbers now use plastic pipes, plastic connections and the techniques that go with them, apprentices in the technical schools were being taught to use lead. There is no lead plumbing practised actively in the community in Victoria. While apprentices have to deal with cars of very modern construction, instructors in the technical schools were begging people outside for car bodies- any car bodies- on which their apprentices could train. So a car body that was 30 years behind the times could be used in the training of apprentices in this field. Yet the Department of Education in Victoria did absolutely nothing about bringing this situation into order. So apprentices were going through the technical schools under the training of the Department of Education in Victoria knowing little or nothing of modern workshop practices. Their instructors had absolutely no chance to give them a critical evaluation of new material or new methods because the Department itself was 30 years behind the times and as much as the instructors endeavoured to bring their apprentices up to modern day methods they had absolutely no way of doing it under the Victorian Department of Education. Apprentices who lived in the country areas had to travel miles to go to a technical college or they had to do the course by correspondence or give up. If honourable senators had to do a motor mechanics course by correspondence I suggest that most of us would give up.

In respect of apprenticeships for girls there was one area in Victoria and that was hairdressing. There was nowhere else for girls unless they were very tough ladies or unless they found employers who had some sympathy for their cause. Girls could find no other apprenticeship but in hairdressing. In Victoria I venture to suggest that we must have hundreds of very well trained hairdressers who no longer have jobs. There is a hairdressing school for girls in Victoria. It is predominantly a girls hairdressing school. There are some boys there, I must admit. Honourable senators would not be surprised to know that this school is situated in one 19th century school plus a factory which I think produced jam plus portable schoolrooms dotted about the vacant area and of course if it rains the apprentices get drowned while they are trying to get to the portable classrooms. It is one great rambling rabbit warren. There are raw electrical installations in the building. There are bare boards. There is such a lack of ventilation that when there are- I apologise to honourable senators in this chamber because I suppose they would not know of this- 18 permanent waves being carried out in the one room with the smell of chemicals being used, the sun pouring through the windows which have no protection and 18 very hot machines in the room there are 18 apprentices placed in a very precarious position in respect of their health, so much so that there is a full-time sister in attendance at this hairdressing school for apprentices to deal with the girls who faint because of the impossible conditions they work under and the elderly customers upon whom they practice and who are in turn inclined to faint because of the heat from the machines and the smell of the chemicals which are used. Some of the rooms in this building have no outside light. There are cracks in the walls and the walls look as though they are going to fall down. There are no change rooms. There is no room at all between the lockers where the girls put their outside clothes. The office of the deputy principal of the school is literally a broom cupboard. There is no room in the art room to move one ‘s arm and sketching is very difficult. There is no theatre or proper lecture room. The males who lecture have to do so among the dryers. Because this is the only apprenticeship school in Victoria for hairdressing that gives women any sort of go there is obviously no hope at all for it in respect of funding for technical and further education.

In that field in Victoria the impetus for funding from the Technical and Further Education Commission was the only hope we had and despite the lack of movement in the apprenticeship field there was a need for experienced manpower and technician courses were set up in Victoria. Several of the technical schools set up technician courses on a part-time basis to enable people to update their skills, to learn new skills. This was going to provide a pool of skilled manpower for the work force. It was going to enable people who realised that in their working lifetime they were going to have to change their skills several times and update their skills. It was opening up a whole new world for a lot of people who had not had the opportunity to obtain any son of skill in the work force before. A cut in the funds allocated to the TAFE Commission means a lot of those courses will be abandoned or the technical schools will have to charge fees. We started to interest a lot of new people in forward looking arrangements which would provide them with skills to fit into the workforce. Now, because they have to pay to acquire those skills, they are not acquiring them as they cannot afford the training. After all, they are paying extra tax to provide for Medibank; there is no deduction for children on their tax returns now and so they have to pay more tax; they are spending extra money out of their income because of the pressure to buy private health insurance that they will not ever need, and many of them are out of work. Once they have to pay to go through these courses to acquire extra skills they opt out and so we are losing the enthusiasm of those people and we are losing the skills which the workforce very badly needs. This is all because technical and further education has had the funding cut off to this area.

Migrants form a very large proportion of the people who enter the technical and further education field. Technical schools and all the schools in those areas need more migrant teachers because so many of these people who came out to help make Australia a finer, better and bigger country are lost between 2 worlds. We do not want them to be- and they do not want to bemerely factory fodder but unless we encourage their skills, unless we give them the right to be more than an unskilled worker- an apprentice or a skilled technician- and unless we give them the right to become skilled engineers, we are losing out on the capacity they have to offer us. They will not be able to get ahead without some sort of counselling in those areas. If there are no migrant teachers, if there are no interpreters and if there are no counsellors to advise them where they can go and how they can use the skills and the intelligence they have, we will lose out in a vital area. We will lose out on welding these people into the fabric of Australia. We cannot have the teachers or the counsellors needed unless more money is granted to the technical and further education area. At the moment, one of the directors of education in Victoria is overseas endeavouring to recruit more migrant teachers for Victoria. There are people in the ethnic community in Victoria who have the ability to give that sort of counselling, that sort of technique and that sort of education to people in their own language. If these people undertook a crash course teacher training program there is no reason why they could not be of immense assistance and could not cover this course. The unfortunate part of the situation is that unless funds are made available technical colleges will not be able to provide that son of course- a crash teacher training course- to provide for that vital need in a very vital part of our community in Victoria.

Girls and woman have been ignored in the area of technical education. In November 1974 women comprised one-third of the workforce in Australia. Obviously that number has increased since. Honourable senators would not be surprised to know that although women comprise one-third of the workforce they are at its lowest level. They need very little skill and very little technique to make their way. In every country town junior females form the greatest percentage of the unemployed and something must be done about it. With more direct funding from the federal body women could be encouraged to take up many positive careers in the community. It was said today that lawyers will be in abundance shortly but law clerks will not be in abundance. Women could play a very important role in that area. Technical schools could conduct the necessary courses. In fact, some technical schools have done that already.

Another area in which women could play a vital role is in the area of community health care. Many workers are needed in this area. The areas of child care and dental care, particularly through rural Australia, are at a low ebb. In many of the rural areas no doctors are available to assist people but there are many devoted women who have a great deal of knowledge and who, with a little more assistance and broadening of that knowledge, could really carry rural health care. The Federal Government needs to inject money into the technical and further education area to make sure that crash courses are made available and to make sure that women undertake courses and go out into the community and become part of the workforce. People will say that crash courses are not good enough or that the money is not available to provide them. I should like to remind the Senate that in time of war we can find money to hold courses to provide the skills and techniques needed. What I am saying is that in the areas of health care, child care, dental care and rural health care we are in a state of war because there are not enough workers in them. These are areas in which the Commonwealth Government could do a lot of good.

I asked a question this morning about the amount of money that was being spent in providing 10 000 jobs for youngsters in the defence forces next year. Why cannot similar expenditure be put into this other field- the peace field? Why cannot the Government fund technical colleges for extra courses and teachers to provide those sorts of workers for Victoria? No evidence exists which indicates that Victoria will do anything along those lines with the money which it has been granted. In the past Victoria has not accounted in any way for the money that it has been granted for education. In fact, many people in Victoria feel that the money has fallen into a big black hole because they cannot see what good it has done for their children. We want to be assured that the money is spent in areas in which there is the greatest need. So far the Department of Education in Victoria has made bungling, futile attempts to cope with the twentieth century. We hesitate to think what it will do in the twenty-first century unless funds are earmarked to provide skilled tradesmen and skilled craftsmen- men who take care and pride in what they produce- so that we might get back to providing goods that we need rather than goods to throw away.

We need skilled technicians in a technical age. Unless specific funds are made available women and girls in our community will not be able to take their places as skilled people and courses will not be expanded to include them. The Victorian Department of Education has given no indication that it even knows that these women and girls exist or that they should do anything for them. We need teachers with other languages in the area of technical and further education because we have a great number of people with a great number of skills who, as I said earlier, are lost between 2 worlds. Without the teachers to provide the link between the 2 worlds we are wasting their resources. For those people to achieve their full capacity and to take their integral place in the community, we must have migrant teachers to bring them into this world of ours. That will not happen unless the Federal Government provides specific funds.

Technical schools- I can speak only of Victoria with any degree of knowledge- traditionally have been disadvantaged. They were the schools to which children went when they were at the end of the row. They were the children who came from disadvantaged homes; they had language difficulties; and they had a dislike of learning because of the way they had gone through the education system. Their home environment was not inducive to their believing that they could do anything better. They had a lack of expectation about what they could do in the world. The need no longer exists for technical schools to cope simply with disadvantaged areas. But with the record that the Victorian Department of Education has there will be no hope of them getting out of that area unless someone provides more funds so that their skills can be developed.

In that area there is justification for more money being put into capital grants because up to this point in time so many children have come from disadvantaged areas with very little beauty in their lives. There is justification in spending money on beautiful buildings for these people who have never experienced beauty before. Justification can be made for more money being spent on training teachers in these areas to be even more inspired than other teachers. I must say that in some of the schools that I have gone into in that area the inspiration and belief of those teachers in those children and what they could contribute is one of the most beautiful things I have encountered. Up to this point in time the Victorian Government has given no indication that it envisages anything like that for the children in those areas. As I have said, many teachers believe that this is a real area of education. Some teachers believe that apprentices can be given a love of the beautiful things in this life. Because a boy earns his living as a motor mechanic there is no reason on earth why he should not love painting or paint pictures. There are teachers in Victoria who believe that because a boy earns his living practically as a plumber there is no reason why he should not love and create music. But those teachers in the Victorian education system are not getting a great deal of encouragement. While grants of this amount are made in this way to States like Victoria there is no way that the motor mechanics of the future will love or create painting, there is no way that the plumbers of the future will love or create music, and there is no way that the women of Victoria will ever be anything else but the base factory process workers which they are at the moment. I say that Australia is missing out on what these people have to offer.

The only hope is to have federal grants going straight into that area. To emphasise my point I point out that 16 per cent of youths between 16 and 19 years are unemployed and while $150m is being spent on their unemployment grants only $70m is being spent on technical and further education. What I am saying is that if some people applied their minds to what those youngsters could do for Australia in the areas which at the moment we are ignoring, we could put that $150m to some real good. We could really achieve something in Australia. If honourable senators recently have sat in an office of the Commonwealth Employment Service and watched the light go out of the eyes of these youngsters while they sit there and realise that the world no longer wants them they would believe that that $150m could be put to much greater use to bring these people back into the community of Australia. I applaud the amendment which the Opposition has proposed and hope that we will press on for more funding for technical and further education in Australia.

Senator MARTIN:
Queensland

-In my short time as a senator I have observed some rather interesting things, particularly in relation to education debates. I was elected to this Senate with a fair sort of background in the area of education. I came into a parliament which was spending enormous sums of money in the general area that we refer to as education. I was initially appalled by the lack of real interest that people in this Parliament took in what they were talking about. If one judges by the debates on education that take place in this Parliament it would seem that all one needs to be capable of making decisions on policy in relation to education is firstly to have been to school oneself; secondly, preferably to have had children who have gone to school; and thirdly- this is purely an option- to have witnessed at some stage or another students in an educational institution.

We hear things expounded in this Parliament which more closely relate to poetry than policy on the subject of education. We have just heard a fascinating speech from Senator Melzer. I do not mean this personally, but I say in all sincerity that a lot of it would have been more appropriately set to music than delivered in a debate on education. It would have been more interesting to hear some comment on the subject of what education is all about.

This evening we are debating a large number of Bills which give great scope to the Senate to have a debate on the broad issues in education. I hope nobody will accuse me of oversimplification, because public debate on education is obviously a vexed and a difficult one. The input is coming from many sources. Just latterly the input is coming from sources that I do not think anybody would have anticipated just a few months ago. We are continually seeing articles on the subject of education in newspapers and in news magazines. We are hearing more and more, through letters to the editors of newspapers or letters to members of parliament, a cry of concern about what on earth is happening in education in Australia today. We must take note of it.

I do not suggest for one minute that we ought to respond to it on a superficial level. I have been here long enough at least not to respond in these terms. We ought not to gauge any of our policies according to that interest group which is most successful at producing Press releases or at mobilising numbers of people to write certain stereotyped letters on the subject of education. I raise this general point because it is interesting to look at the Opposition’s proposed amendment to the motion to the second reading of these Bills in this light. There is a suggestion that at the end of the motion certain words ought to be added in relation to technical education. It very much interests me- somebody who has been here a mere Vh years- to thus be informed what officially is the new sacred cow in education. I have seen a number of them pass, or lumber, through this chamber in those 2 n years.

In my life in the area of education, which is virtually the whole of my life, I have seen a great herd of them lumber through the Australian society. I now wonder what it has been all about. I have worked in educational institutions and in the educational establishment and ! have observed educational establishments as an administrator and as a practitioner. What a lot we have to learn about modern Australian society from the education establishment and how much indeed are other establishments learning from the precedents set by the educational establishment. The procedure is simply to establish something as a sacred cow. One then sets up some sort of committee of inquiry drawn from members who have a vested interest in the furtherance of the cause of the political sacred cow. Not surprisingly, predictably, those commissions of inquiry invariably come up with a recommendation to the effect of: ‘What this country really needs is more people like us’. That is the recommendation to the government and if any government dares to challenge that recommendation it is daring to challenge the sacred cow which is so well established that it has led to the establishment of committees of inquiry, commissions, probably sub-departments within departments and inevitably, by the time the report of the committee of inquiry comes in, a whole new academic discipline in itself. We have had endless commissions of inquiry into education in Australia. Please do not misunderstand me. We will probably need many more. We have undoubtedly benefitted much from a number of those we have had. But surely it is not surprising that when one turns to educationists and asks them: What is really wrong with education in Australia, that the answer one invariably receives is: There are not enough educationists; that is what is wrong with education in Australia. That is part of the process of establishment of the sacred cow.

I refer again to the amendment proposed by the Opposition. Let me not be misunderstood, much less misconstrued. Members of the Government have never, I hope, said anything which would lead anyone to suggest that we do not recognise the needs in the technical educational area. However I am curious about why that issue above all the great educational issues which arise naturally or superficially in public debate today, has been chosen. I remember a time not very long ago when the voguish sacred cow was Aborigines and Aboriginal education. That has apparently been by-passed and now we have a new one. I believe the Minister can deal in detail with any challenges made to the Government in the area of technical education. I will leave that to him.

I want to look next at the most recent sacred cow in education in Australia, that of Aboriginal education, of which we have heard nothing from the Opposition so far. I think it would be salutary to look at what happened to the people who have been subjected to various changes of policy in that area and at what they have gained educationally. While the analogy might be limited because of very particular social factors, in political terms it is not limited if we can learn a lesson about how to proceed with policies in relation to any area of education. The matter of education of Aborigines, a very specialised area, was in great vogue just a few short years ago.

The Labor Government undertook some measures in relation to Aboriginal education, specifically in the Northern Territory. That is one of the areas of Australia in which the Federal Government has a very direct and a very specific responsibility. Because this debate has been used largely as a vehicle for debating what State education departments are or are not doing- conveniently those involved in the debate have overlooked the fact that the Commonwealth Government has a full responsibility for education in the Territories- it ought to be pointed out that before any member of the Commonwealth Parliament can point the finger he ought to look at the Commonwealth Government’s record in that area in which it has an exclusive responsibility. I am well aware that Senator Robertson will follow me in this debate. He has a very particular experience of education in the Australian Territories. He has treated the Senate to some very valuable contributions on specific areas of education on previous occasions. I am sure he will take in the right spirit what I am about to say. As somebody who is interested in education- not as somebody from the Northern Territory, but as somebody who recognises that all members of the Commonwealth Parliament have a very particular responsibility for what happens in education in the Northern TerritoryI feel morally obliged to make a statement this evening on the subject. My experience of the educational situation in the Northern Territory is not as long as that of somebody like Senator Robertson, but I have a fairly general experience in education. I have been to the Northern Territory on more than one occasion and have witnessed certain things. It is reasonable that I should make some sort of assessment of what is happening in class rooms and what appears to be the flow-on benefit or otherwise to the community from what is happening in the class rooms.

We have had too many sacred cows and too many easy, glib answers on education in Australia. Nothing shows that better than the parlous state of education of Aborigines. Many experiments have been tried. There was some comment in this debate on areas in which more money should be spent. If one looks at the situation in the Northern Territory one sees that the lack has not been money. A great deal of money has been spent. More money might possibly have been spent. In fairness, one would have to say that it is not lack of resources which has led to failures in the system. In my opinion, what has led to failures in the system has been lack of planning; lack of care; lack of recognition of the objectives of education anywhere, but particularly in relation to this group in our society; lack of a clear understanding of the terms in which we are accountable to our country for any educational policies which we pursue; and lack of understanding of where education policy fits into a general social policy.

One thing that can be said very easily about Aboriginal education, as perceived in the Northern Territory, is that education cannot be isolated. If one wishes to talk about this subject, wishes to make a contribution or wishes to make some suggestion about what ought to happen, one cannot do it in purely educational terms. The social factors which prevail and which influence the good which any policy may do are overwhelming. The old idea that education made available without any discrimination on the basis of financial means thereby raises the standard of people has been very obviously disproved in this particular area. Money has been available. Assistance has generally been available to individuals. Results have not come. The standards of the Aboriginal people have not been raised. We have a disillusioned people who had promises made to them- they had a promise of a better world made to them, they had some rosy vision shown to them, they pursued a course which should have led to the fruition of that promise or that vision. That promise or that vision has not come to fruition because the promise was not well related to the vision.

Senator Melzer:

– This all sounds very nice, but what does it mean?

Senator MARTIN:

– I am saying to Senator Melzer that trendy ideas of what ought to happen in education in that area have not been related to a proper, careful study of the factors which should operate. One can see in Darwin, Alice Springs and other places very impressive edifices. I do not decry them in any way. I think it is admirable that they are there. I think they ought to be utilised, but they do not solve the problem. If the training which is given in them does not equip those people to go back into their own community- a type of transition community between the ‘noble savage’ state and the white society by which they are surrounded and with which they are constantly in contact- if it does not give them the means of coping with that situation, it is a failure in educational terms. If we take young people from their families, a great cost to their race, and separate them from their families, if we teach them to read and write and do not give them any means of living by those skills but send them back to a society in which those skills are not used but are forgotten we have somehow or other failed those people educationally.

The whole matter of what we ought to be doing in that area, I suggest, ought to be pursued with great caution. They are nice, equivocal words. They do not necessarily boil down to something useful. Can I pursue a particular example? If one travels around the fringe camps of Alice Springs one sees parents and children living in a state of absolute squalor. In one camp which I have visited one child out of thirty-six of school age was attending school. The reasons the other children were not attending school varied. The reason why that single child was attending school was that both its parents had a certain minimal level of education, and they were of the few, as far as I could gather, of their race who still believed that education for their children meant something for the future of the childrenthe opportunity of a decent life. The other children were not at school for a variety of reasons. Primarily, their parents were not motivated to send their children to school. That is not surprising. On what basis does one motivate people if one cannot say at the end: ‘Here is something which is of benefit to you or your children”? One cannot hold out nothing but hope any longer. Too often in this area in recent years hope has been an illusion for that race.

Further how can one expect parents to send their children to school when, frankly, the parents have barely allowed the children to sleep all night? We have to face a very strong moral responsibility in relation to these people. I well remember the debate many years ago about whether alcohol ought to be available to Aborigines. A Senate committee brought in a report on this subject. A House of Representatives committee is investigating the subject. There is no longer any dispute that it is the major Aboriginal problem that we must face. Somehow we must find a solution to it. When we see children asleep over their desks at school and we know that one of the reasons why those children are asleep is that they have been unable to sleep the previous night in their camp as a direct result of the avail.ability of alcohol, we must ask ourselves: What on earth are we doing? The taking away of alcohol will not solve that problem. Refusing to recognise that it is a problem is even more dangerous and more stupid. That is a fact.

When one enters these fringe camps one sees the ground littered with broken glass and rusty tin cans, and one is aware of the non-existence in many cases of hygienic conditions to the point that one can marvel at the fact that more than half of the Aboriginal children live to school age without succumbing to either tetanus or hepatitis. One can enter another camp where the facilities in theory are excellent- the buildings are sturdy, the toilets automatically flush but one finds that the Aborigines themselves reject what would appear to be a reasonable transitional social stage. One knows that the more of those rudimentary huts that are built, the more Aborigines will be attracted to the basic facility of running water if nothing more. One nevertheless sees that the camp is full of school age children, not at school, running around, in no way attracted to school and in no way motivated themselves or through their parents to attend school which is easily accessible, to which they could be transported by a free bus which calls regularly. Attendance at school presents no actual hardship.

When we look at these types of families and see the nomadic life that many of them live, we realise that one of the problems that we face is that we are trying through building edifices to make those people fit into a physical structure which is quite foreign to them. We realise also that the answer is not easy. It is not just a matter of building schools. When one talks to the teachers at those schools, one discovers that they think that it is a fortunate case if a particular child attends a school for an average of 3 days per week. Then one knows that the sort of schooling that is being offered and into which the Aborigines are expected to fit is in no way realistic.

What are the alternatives? I do not pretend to have all the answers. We see some interesting things happening in the Northern Territory. Some colleges take Aboriginal children from their families and train them to a certain level of ability in literacy and numeracy and they train some of those children to achieve a certain ability in subjects such as manual crafts, hygiene, child care and nutrition. We think that must represent a basic start. Then we find out that the best of those students who reach high school level are sent off to the local high school inevitably, it seems, to wither on the vine. Some of themsome very few of them- succeed when taken out of that sterile or artificial, if we may describe it that way, environment and are put into the real world environment. The important aspect surely is that, having tried a transitional stage, all that we achieve is that their education ceases. Somehow these potential leaders lose their motivation. It comes through loud and clear in the whole area of Aboriginal policy in Australia that the Aboriginal people need leaders of their own race, people who understand the problems of their own race, who can communicate to them and who, through their own success or whatever it is that moves that race, can motivate them to try to lift themselves to basic standards of decency.

I am obliged to say that while I think that we can learn many things that we need to know from the Aboriginal culture- and I do not believe that we have ever seriously tried in the past- the pursuit of the ‘noble savage’ theory is not one which will benefit us anything. Aborigines are in contact with the white community in Australia today. They witness it. They are aware of it. They may not be in contact with it for the majority of each year, but it influences them irrevocably. Unfortunately, in all too many cases, the influence is the very worst that the white society could possibly have on that race. We must recognise that the white community has influenced them. We must accept responsibility for the consequences. So, to pursue the ‘noble savage’ theory and say ‘Let them wander in the deserts. Let them wander as they like. Let them take the worst from our society and manage as best they can’ is totally irresponsible. Education must be part of the key. We probably have to educate ourselves first a lot further. We must understand better what the cultures of all those tribes are. We must appreciate those cultures. There are some areas where I personally believe we could embrace certain aspects of Aboriginal culture to the betterment of our culture.

What we must do above all else is guard against the easy answer, because we just do not know enough about the problem. We must recognise that each step must be taken carefully, because the damage which has been done so far through unwise steps is virtually incalculable. We must recognise that each step should be based on the best possible knowledge and that we ought to act with the best possible motivationnot the pursuit of the political ‘sacred cow’ of education, not the pursuit of a mere handful of votes, but the pursuit of that which will vindicate this society some time in the future through the only reasonable basis of judgment- the benefit to the people to whom it is directed.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– I am surprised at some of the introductory comments made by Senator Martin. Personally, I found Senator Melzer ‘s speech very much to the point regarding the problems of apprenticeship. She stressed the problems that are faced by apprentices. No doubt, in the work that she had before she came here, she would have had experience of several hundreds of these problems. Senator Martin also questioned the emphasis that we place on technical and further education. I thought it would be fairly obvious by comments which have been made by many speakers today that technical and further education has been chosen for special attention because it is an area of great need, and the area is one which has been overlooked for many years. I was interested to hear one of the earlier speakers on the other side say that this matter was looked at 16 or 20 years ago. The only comment that I could make is that one would never know because, until fairly recently, very little had been done in the field of technical and further education.

Senator Martin also spoke at some length about Aboriginal education. I can understand her interest in the subject when I look at the standard of Aboriginal education in the State from which she comes. The system in the- Northern Territory is not without its defects. But there is no doubt that in the years 1972 to 1975 there were some quite significant advances, I feel. As a matter of fact, I am rather tempted to launch into these advances and comment on what Senator Martin has said. But obviously I would use up time which I had hoped to use on something else. Let Senator Martin be assured that I certainly appreciate her interest. 1 would welcome the opportunity of showing her some of the things that have happened in the Northern Territory. I think there is much evidence of the achievements of the last 3 years. If perhaps we could do that, it might as she says help her to educate herself. At the same time, she could educate me by telling me what she means by ‘sacred cow’ and ‘noble savages’.

I rise to support the amendment and to speak generally on the 8 Bills. I think that is a much better proposition than to spend a few minutes on each Bill. I make no apology for the fact that I will relate my comments to the Northern Territory. I have said before in this place that I see my role quite clearly here as being to put the case for the Northern Territory and to speak about it. But that is not the only reason why I will relate my comments to the Northern Territory.

There are two very good reasons why I should do so. The first, as Senator Martin has quite clearly said, is that the Government has particular responsibilities for the Northern Territory, directly in the running of the schools and indirectly, perhaps, in the assistance which is given to the people in the Northern Territory, the same as it is given to people in the various States. This is why the Bills that we are discussing tonight become particularly relevant.

There is a second reason. This is that we in the Territory are moving towards statehood or some form of autonomy. I think it is most important that we at this stage start to enter at the lower level, as it were, and help to get ourselves adjusted to this new role that we are to have.

The first comment that I wish to make is to mention ACENT- the Advisory Committee on Education in the Northern Territory. I have mentioned this before, but I must again bring it to the attention of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick). I ask the Minister once again to give serious consideration to the establishment of the Advisory Committee on Education in the Northern Territory. The Minister and others will recall that last year there was a meeting- a particularly representative meeting- to discuss the setting up of ACENT. Some very good recommendations came out of this meeting, but up to this point, although there has been a report, nothing has been done. If we see this as a step towards our own authority and our own autonomy as the Australian Capital Territory has, we ought to see the setting up of ACENT as being the necessary first step. It can, as it were, set the scene for what is to happen later. I make a plea to the Minister to look again at the establishment of an advisory committee on education in the Northern Territory.

The second area I would like to look at is the involvement of parents and the community generally in education. I was most encouraged tonight to hear Senator Knight say that this is a plank in the Liberal-National Country Party platform. The Government parties want to see community involvement. I was a little disturbed earlier this week to hear the Minister, in reply to a question, comment about parental involvement. He had been questioned about whether there were any parents on a committee, and he made the point that people who were on the committee were themselves parents and this satisfied the need of parents being represented. I must put to him very strongly that of course this is not so. It is illogical to suggest that simply because a person is a parent he necessarily represents the views of the parents of a particular group any more than a teacher would necessarily represent the views of all teachers. So I would ask the Minister to look at this point carefully. If we are to have parents on a committee, let some organisation of parents select people who reflect their views, who are able to collate the views of the various parents and who have some accountability to these parents for what they say. We will recall, of course, that the Labor Government set aside a certain amount of money in its Budget to support and encourage parental involvement in education. I notice that none has been set aside by the present Government. This seems a great pity.

I draw to the Minister’s attention the next topic I wish to mention- the Katherine Rural College. We all know, because of a report that has been presented to the Minister, that a very good committee was set up to look at the needs of technical and further education and agricultural education in the Northern Territory. It made a study of the situation and presented a very good report. It came up with some very clear indications of a need for training in the Northern Territory and the need to provide agricultural and technical education to all young people in the Northern Territory- not only the Aboriginal people but also the European people, but it did identify a special need for Aboriginal people. The Schools Commission report states:

We recognise that a serious problem exists in the field of technical education with regard to Aboriginal people. In our experience one feature of successful schemes for the education of Aborigines has been the recognition that a special approach is necessary.

Honourable senators will recall that in this place I have mentioned a number of times the need for training for Aboriginal young people and the need to train them in their own communities. It is interesting that the Katherine Rural College Planning Committee said much the same thing. In its report it said:

Aboriginal students be encouraged to enroll in short intensive courses at the College, with the bulk of the training being given in the home community.

I repeat:

  1. . with the bulk of the training being given in the home community.

I think it is clear from what I said earlier that the Katherine Rural College, like colleges in other areas, could act as a centre from which trainers would take their equipment from the college and work in the community. Some short courses would be offered for those people who need them and the rest could be taken out to the community. The Katherine Rural College Planning Committee also drew attention to the need for training of apprentices. This ties in well with what Senator Melzer said earlier. At present too many people are going outside the Territory for their training. Too many are going to Queensland and southern centres to get the training which they ought to be able to get in the Northern Territory. As I have mentioned before in this place, the Darwin Community College cannot cope with the needs of the apprentices because of the shortage of staff brought about by staff ceilings; but that does not mean that at this stage we should not draw attention once again to the need for centres to be set up within the Territory for the training of apprentices. Not only is it expensive to send young people interstate but it is also highly undesirable. I think parents will agree that it is much better to have the young men and women stay at home than go interstate. If training is offered within the Territory young people will not be forced into taking education in the long blocks but rather can perhaps attend on a day basis if that is thought to be desirable. As it is now, if people have to move interstate they must go for a long period to cut down on the cost of expensive travel. So I would urge the Minister to see the establishment of the Katherine Rural College as a real priority. It has suffered the fate of quite a number of other things at the moment. It has been cut out.

I move to the education of the isolated children. I was very pleased to hear Senator Davidson, who is the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, comment on this subject. I had rather hoped that perhaps Senator Martin and some other members of that Committee would comment on what is a very important area. I was a member of the Committee for only a short time, so I can say without any conceit that its report is a very good report with some very good recommendations. The whole area was very well researched over a period of three to four years, and the Committee came up with some very good recommendations which I suggest the Minister might well look at. I was certainly a member of the Committee long enough to see the problems faced by isolated children and their parents. In the area of education and what was offered to the children, particularly the older students who were looking perhaps at secondary education up to matriculation level the basic problems for parents were finance and the picking up of their children and so on. All these things have been explained very carefully in the report. I urge the Minister to consider all the Committee’s recommendations. I will mention a small number on which action could be taken immediately. Recommendation No. 5 states:

The Commonwealth Government review its educational policy in the Northern Territory to ensure equal education opportunity for both Aboriginal and European children.

There are a number of reasons why this has been put in. There is certainly what some people have called a white backlash in the Northern Territory. Some of the people living in remote areas felt that the amount of money that was being spent on Aboriginals was in excess of what was being spent on the European children, and there was some reaction. I have my own views on the greater needs of the Aboriginal child, but one can see why the European parent should take the view he has. I commend the Committee’s recommendation as a very strong recommendation. Recommendation No. 1 1 states:

The payment of benefits under the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme to be continued and that levels of assistance and application of the means test for additional allowances be reviewed annually so that allowances are paid at a rate commensurate with education expenditure.

There is no doubt that the Minister has had plenty of information on this matter. I have personally sent him a number of letters and a number of telegrams which I have received from parents who have complained about the small amount of assistance which is available to the parents of isolated children. Action could be taken on that recommendation immediately. Another one on which action could be taken immediately states:

The Government examine the taxation deductions presently allowable for educational expenses incurred by parents with a view to increasing the maximum deduction allowable.

Action could be taken on that in the very near future. Another recommendation states:

The Commonwealth Government review as a matter of urgency those decisions which have resulted in making mail delivery services financially prohibitive for families in remote areas.

Obviously education in remote areas cannot be based on correspondence without using the mail system. The mail system has made the cost of correspondence education prohibitive to some parents. Certainly some assistance could be given in this area. The last recommendation I mention- I would like to read all of them- is recommendation No. 21, which states:

The second component of the Correspondence Allowance paid as reimbursement of expenditure on the employment of a governess or domestic help be increased and regularly reviewed by the Commonwealth Government.

I have mentioned only those matters which are of direct concern to the Commonwealth Government because they are matters on which the Minister can take action almost immediately. I recommend strongly to him, as Senator Davidson did, that he look at these recommendations which have been put forward in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts.

I move to the area of special education, particularly as it relates to the Northern Territory, although it is something which applies to the whole of Australia. I was very pleased to hear the Minister outline his philosophy on special education. Strangely enough, it is identical with my own. Honourable senators may recall that he suggested in the case of a child needing special assistance or special education that he should be given a number of alternatives. He should be educated with his peer groups as the first choice. He should be allowed to remain in the class with the rest of the children of his own age. If that is not possible, the second choice is to put the child in the class and withdraw him for short periods to give him assistance. If that is not particularly appropriate, the third choice is to have a class in the school building so that the child can be in contact during recess times and in the general context of the school with his own age group.

Senator Devitt:

– Has that system been tried?

Senator ROBERTSON:

– It has been tried in the Northern Territory and it is a good system. The fourth choice is to have a separate building, and the final choice is to send the child interstate. As I said before, I agree entirely with the proposition put forward by the Minister but I would remind him that, unless it is to be only a pious hope, it needs some assistance. A system like that cannot be run unless the Government is prepared to outlay some finance and make some arrangements. The first step is that the teachers who are working with these children would need to have teacher aides to assist them. So the present staff ceilings will have to take a bit of buffeting. We will have to have a look at the need for teacher aides. I have already drawn this matter to the Minister’s attention and I am pleased to say that earlier this year he was able to give us some encouragement by making more people available. But we still need more in this area. We are going to need more teachers- not many more but a few more- because obviously such a child cannot be put into the class and be counted as one student. He would normally be counted as five. More equipment will be needed to meet the special needs of this child and there will need to be adequate teacher training to prepare the teachers to move in and work with these children. This is an important point which is relevant.

It may be appropriate at this stage to mention the area of teacher training. I certainly do not intend to enter into the argument of whether we should educate our teachers or train our teachers. Most educators take a view on this subject. Some say that we educate in universities and that we train in colleges. There is some sort of suggestion that the training may be a lower level than the education. I do not intend to enter that debate. What I am concerned with is that we prepare the teachers to move in and implement the objectives of the Department. I think that that is a very broad definition which is suitable. Unfortunately, there is some concern in the Northern Territory that the preparation of teachers up to this time has not been adequate. In fact the Northern Territory chapter of the Australian College of Education has been moved to mount a survey to find out whether teachers have been adequately prepared, how they themselves see their training, how the children see the training and how the administrators or supervisors see the training. I hope that perhaps later I will be able to present the results of that survey.

Teachers in the Northern Territory have special needs. I know that that is said in relation to every State but we must look at the situation in the Northern Territory, we must think of the numbers of Aboriginal schools, we must think of the problems of special education where the teachers are removed from contact with their colleagues and are unable to get advice and assistance as can perhaps be done between Sydney and Melbourne or between Melbourne and the suburbs. The other factor is the high migrant population. I think that I ought to say something about migrant education because the funds in this area have been cut. This is an area of particular interest to the Northern Territory. We have a high migrant population. I suppose that it would be as high as anywhere else in Australia, if not the highest. There is need for a lot more assistance than is being given at the present time both for children and for adults. I have mentioned before the need for a migrant centre. Perhaps the Minister would be prepared to discuss with his colleagues the possibility of establishing a migrant centre for Darwin which could not only service the children and adults of the Darwin area but also act as a centre for the rest of the Territory. There is need for more programs within industry. Again this means that we want more staff. There is need for special assistance with home education. As many honourable senators would know, there are some ethnic groups in which the women of the family are not allowed to go out to classes. That particular group represents a high percentage of the migrant population of Darwin. We ought to be able to provide education for these people, not only in English but also perhaps in general broadening of civic knowledge.

I have paid tribute before to the schools set up for the Timorese refugees. Honourable senators will recall that at the time of the most disturbing situation in Timor quite a number of Timorese people came to Darwin-Chinese Timorese and indigenous Timorese- and we were able to set up very quickly and very effectively a school to meet the needs of those children. Let us have the same son of speed in setting up schools for the other migrant populations of Darwin. I draw attention also to the need for the Department to move progressively to Darwin. As I mentioned before, we are moving towards a situation of autonomy within the Territory and hopefully we will soon have our own authority. Let us move towards this situation by establishing all sections of the Department in the Darwin area. Obviously it would be more efficient. Obviously it would be more responsive to local needs. There have been some problems this year with planning which may not have happened had the planning branch been in Darwin rather than in Canberra. I have no doubt that this will strike a chord with the Minister because it would be in keeping with his federalism policy.

I must not finish without mentioning the Dripstone school, about which the Minister has received a few letters and about which a petition has been lodged. I know that the Minister is very conscious of the situation in Darwin. I will not canvass the arguments that were put forward before but I ask the Minister if perhaps later he could confirm that the building will start in March of next year, as the rumours have it. I mention also the Darwin Community College. I have raised this matter before and I have raised the problems that are faced by the College because of the shortage of staff. I do not think that I need to put the arguments again. All we need from the Minister is a little sympathetic consideration of the problems faced by the Darwin Community College.

To sum up, I ask the Minister when he is considering these Bills to look at the establishment of the Advisory Committee on Education in the Northern Territory as a step towards our own authority within the Territory and as an involvement of the parents and the community generally in the education scene in Darwin. I ask him to look at the possibility of establishing the Katherine Rural College in the very near future to meet the needs of the rural area. I ask him to look at the needs of isolated children, to take account of what Senator Davidson has said and to take account of the financial hardships suffered by the parents, to which I have just briefly alluded. I ask him to look at special education and at the particular needs of the Northern Territory where at the present time it looks as though the philosophy which he espoused is not currently being followed. The last area that I mention is that of teacher education.

I conclude my few words tonight with a quotation from Dr Anderson who would be well known to the Minister, who gave an address to the May conference of the Australian College of Education. The address was entitled Labor’s Achievements in Australian Education 1972-1975. Dr Anderson had this to say in conclusion:

At the beginning of this paper I referred to the general sense of excitement which permeated education circles in the early days of a Labor Government. That excitement now perhaps seems a long way off, a long time ago. In the wake of a euphoria of spending has come the more sober mood in education today. At this point, however, there appear to be important new directions in Australian education, directions embodying partnerships which in former dmes were only dreamt about.

I suggest to the Minister that we do not destroy those new directions about which Professor Anderson spoke, but build on them and continue the good work.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I have listened to the many suggestions that have emanated from the Opposition as to what should be done for education. Honourable senators opposite devoted their attention particularly to technical and further education. The fact that they had 3 years in government to do something about these matters seems to have completely escaped their attention. Of course, in the technical area we have a problem of gross unemployment which was inherited from the previous Administation. This makes it far more difficult to inject graduates from technical institutions and further education areas into the work force. Rather than help education, the Whitlam Administration, as Senator Tehan reminded us, abandoned the triennial system of funding which resulted in a reduction in expenditure on education. Of course, the Labor Party amassed an amazing deficit of almost $5,000m which we inherited. We had to take steps to correct these rather disastrous economic circumstances that we faced.

Senator Melzer mentioned the difficulty of young migrants entering apprenticeships. Young migrants- they may be 14 or 1 5 years of age- are quite often prevented from learning a trade for more than one reason. One reason that occurs to me in particular is that it takes them a year or so to become familiar enough with the language to understand it. By the time they are able to do that, they run into problems created by trade union obstruction. Perhaps this is an area at which the trade union movement ought to have a look, rather than be rigid about the age at which these people can enter the work force. Perhaps it should relax its attitude in regard to apprenticeships, and that might be of some assistance.

I want to say something about the deficit that the Liberal-National Country Party Government faced when it came into office. Its economic management has enabled it to provide additional finance for education. The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in May this year gave guidelines for the benefit of the various commissions that have been established to make recommendations to the Government with respect to this important and growing area of expenditure. In his speech on 4 November he indicated that the Universities Commission, the Commission on Advanced Education, the Technical and Further Education Commission, and the Schools Commission, as a result of an examination of needs, subject to the guidelines laid down by the Minister, had been able to recommend programs for 1977 totalling $l,537m at December 1975 prices. This represents an increase of $47m in real terms over the expenditure for 1976. For the second and third years of the triennium the commissions were asked to proceed with plans based on minimum growth rates of 2 per cent per annum in real terms for universities, colleges of advanced education and schools, and a higher rate of 5 per cent per annum for technical and further education. So we have provided additional funds for those areas about which Opposition senators have expressed concern. I believe that the people involved in these fields appreciate the efforts that we have made when faced with adverse economic circumstances.

I commend the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts for its report on the problems of isolated children. I was happy to attend the federal meeting of the Isolated Children’s Parents Association at Broken Hill at which Senator Davidson, the Chairman of that Committee, gave the occasional address and referred to aspects of the Committee’s report. I compliment Senator Davidson and the Committee on the effort that they have put into it. I commend the recommendations contained in the report to the Government. I lend my support to the hope that the recommendations will be acted upon as soon as possible.

We are dealing with 8 Bills, as has been mentioned several times this evening. I want to say how pleased I was to note that the provision for disadvantaged schools and schools in disadvantaged country areas has been increased, and also that the recurrent expenditure and the levels of assistance for non-government schools have received some attention. In his second reading speech on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1976 the Minister said:

The Government reaffirms its policy of providing basic per capita grants for all pupils in non-government schools while at the same time maintaining higher grants for schools in greater need. It is concerned to encourage parental choice. The Government has accepted the Schools Commission recommendation that the level of grants for non-government schools be linked automatically in future years to per pupil expenditure levels in government schools.

I think that is a very necessary provision. The Minister went on to say:

The Government has generally accepted the Commission’s recommended levels of funding for nongovernment schools in 1977 but has decided to increase the size of recommended general recurrent grant for the most needy primary schools from $223 to $229 per pupil (in average 1976 price levels). These schools cater for approximately 90 per cent of enrolments in non-government primary schools.

I notice that Schedule 4 of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill mentions the level of assistance to be provided and sets out the amounts to be provided for primary school students and the amounts to be provided for secondary school students. At level 1 the amount provided for each primary school student is $88 and at level 2 the amount provided for each primary school student is $117. At level 1 the amount of $137 will be provided for each secondary school student and at level 2 $ 187 will be provided. I commend the Government for its action in that regard.

I refer now to the States Grants (Universities) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976. I agree with Senator Tehan ‘s comment that more attention should be given to the number of students graduating in quite a large number of faculties. He mentioned the law faculty. I draw attention in particular to dental graduates in South Australia. I was talking to Senator Grimes not long ago and he referred to the South Australian report on medical graduates. It seems that in South Australia in a few years time we will have, I think, 1 doctor for every 250 people. The Government has to watch these things very carefully.

Senator Georges:

– What is the solution?

Senator JESSOP:

– The solution, in my view, would be to consult more carefully the Australian Medical Association and the State governments in order to try to sort out this problem.

Senator Melzer:

– What about the customers?

Senator JESSOP:

– Yes, that is important. I think the consumers ought to be consulted in this regard as well. Nevertheless, it is of concern to me that in South Australia we seem to be producing law graduates who are unable to find work. If we are not careful and if we do not examine this problem very critically, I am afraid that the same thing will happen in other professions.

Senator Georges:

– That will result in quotas, of course. You know that, do you not? That is what will happen.

Senator JESSOP:

-I would think that some system will have to be developed to ensure that these graduates are able to find work and thus are able to serve the requirements of the community in a better way. Of course, we know how difficult it is to attract doctors to the country areas, for example. That is a matter which deserves the attention of governments, both at State and Federal levels, and also deserves the attention of the AMA. I think it is a matter which has been neglected for too long.

In the fairly short time at my disposal I wish to refer to the problems of the dental profession in South Australia. I know that the situation in Victoria is different because that State needs more graduates. But it seems to me that this is an area of concern which the Government must examine critically. The current dental population ratios are interesting. I have a report on aspects of dental care for the community submitted by the South Australia Branch of the Australian Dental Association which under the heading ‘Current Dental Population Ratios ‘ states:

Dental practitioners from Government Health and Education Department, Universities and from private practice agreed on the ratio of 1:2000 for planning purposes. After taking the activities of the School Dental Service (nationally) into account a planning ratio for other dentists in the community was set at 1:2439. This would appear to be a reasonable planning ratio for the Australian Community in order to ensure economic viability of private dental practices.

The report goes on to say:

The planning ratio of 1:2439 is seen in this State as being suitable for the metropolitan area bearing in mind the involvement of auxiliaries such as dental assistants and hygienists but the situation changes rapidly in the country with its sparse population. Here care must be exercised to consider the needs of regions rather than overall ratios.

It is interesting to note that the report states that the dentist population ratio in West Germany is 1: 1943. This is almost an optimal ratio. The dentist population ratio is a matter for concern particularly when the association examines the manpower requirements in the profession. The Association has figures from the Australian Bureau of Census and Statistics, indicating the population projections for South Australia. In June 1975 the figure was 1 234 100; for 1980 the figure is 1 296 530; for 1985 it is 1 366 320; and for 1990 it is 1 379 420. These figures have paid regard to the migrant population. The Association has illustrated its assessment of the future manpower requirements in this way:

  1. In the future the number of dentists needed for increased population will amount to a maximum of 6 a year until 1990. In the last financial year, the population increase fell from 1.3 per cent to 0.9 per- cent, reducing the number of dentists needed.
  2. An additional intake of approximately 10 a year will be needed to replace those who cease practice.
  3. Allowance has to be made for dentists transferring practices to or from South Australia.

I would imagine that quite a few dentists will be transferring to Victoria in view of the different situation in that State. The governments of Victoria and South Australia ought to get together on this matter. It seems quite senseless that South Australia is in danger of producing too many dentists and Victoria has an insufficient number. The next suggestion in the report states:

  1. Allowance has to be made for dentists to reach the optimum country and metropolitan population ratios plus dentists for the School Dental Services-(6 dentists a year for 5 years).

The last recommendation states:

  1. Allowance has to be made for dentists catering for public patients, possibly not more than three or four dentists a year.

The report also points to the importance of providing school dental services, particularly for primary schools, but it expresses some concern about extending this service to the secondary student level. The Association maintains that this can be done efficiently and economically in many areas. I realise that the remote areas are a distinct problem but areas such as the Barossa Valley are mentioned in the report. You, Mr President, would appreciate this. That area has 3 or 4 dentists in relatively close proximity. It seems uneconomic that even school dental services should be established because this requires a duplication of equipment. It requires considerable expenditure, 90 per cent of which, it must be remembered, is provided by the Federal Government. I think economies could be considered in that respect. That would help the dental practitioners concerned. It would provide an efficient service to the school children patients in that area. In my opinion, it would save money and provide on a fee for service basis a very satisfactory solution to the problem. I draw the attention of the Minister for Education to the matter. He may care to consult his colleague the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) with whom I have discussed details. I hope that between them they might be able to come up with some rationalisation with respect to dental graduate requirements in South Australia.

Another matter I would like to refer to briefly is the possibility of providing more research grants for universities. I notice that the Government has provided the sum of $32,267,000 to the

University of Adelaide and the sum of $14,353,000 to the Flinders University of South Australia. I have a great respect for the Institute for Energy Studies at Flinders University. I have had a number of discussions with members of that Institute concerning the need for more money to assist them in very important energy research projects. The Institute has gathered together a staff of physical scientists who are dedicated to projects such as the development of solar and wind energy and other matters associated with future energy experimentation. I think it behoves this Government to take a progressive look at the whole question of funding in this area. The Government has been asked whether it intends to continue expenditure on nuclear developments to the extent of $14m annually. This question was posed in a letter to me from the Director of the Institute, Assistant Professor de Bruin. He asked whether the Government intends to honour its election promises in which it emphasised the need to support research into solar energy. I realise that the Government has provided money to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for this particular development. But more must be done and I re-emphasise my concern that we cannot rely on overseas countries to provide us with all the answers to these problems. I believe it is incumbent upon us to pay greater regard to that sort of funding in the future. I hope the Minister will examine this matter and try to find a little more money for that purpose in the next Budget.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I wish to speak briefly to these 8 Bills before the Senate and to support of the amendment moved by my Leader, Senator Wriedt. I feel I must refer to the conversation which I had with Senator Jessop to which he referred concerning the number of medical graduates in this country and the number of graduates particularly in the State of South Australia. I agree with him that it looks as though in future there will be a problem. I certainly do not agree with the solutions that he has put forward. I believe we must question very seriously in the future the number of medical schools we will need and the number of medical graduates we will need in the years to come particularly with the potentiality of a population which is growing much slower than it has been and which in fact in some places has reached zero growth. The main problem in respect of medical graduates in this country is not the number of graduates but their distribution. They are distributed in the big cities. They are distributed in the big towns and within those cities and towns they tend to be distributed in the most wealthy areas, in the most comfortable areas.

One of the problems that face doctors and medical graduates is that their education is gained in the cities, and is specialist orientated. They have no exposure to rural practice, smalltown practice, to country practice at all. They hear only the bad things, about the difficulties of practising in the country. They have no encouragement to go there at all. Often when they get there they have great difficulty in getting relief and this is the very great problem which faces the medical profession and medical health care delivery in this country in general. That is the sort of problem that has to be solved. I suggest that in view of the record of the medical profession and in view of the record of professional associations in this country in general the Australian Medical Association, although it should be consulted, is certainly not the body to look at this problem and to produce solutions to it. The problem is going to have to be faced by the whole community. It will have to be faced by governments in this community because governments make decisions in these areas.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– But the medical profession has always been urban and metropolitan organised and controlled.

Senator GRIMES:

– It always has been I agree with you and it always will be. It has not only been metropolitan controlled, but it has been specialist conrolled. Some of us in this place were rural general practitioners just before we became members of the Parliament and some of us grew up in rural general practices as I understand it and until we overcome those very difficulties I was talking of we will always have this great mal-distribution of medical care and medical personnel in this country. But that is by the by.

I listened to the debate with interest. I have listened to the figures that have been bandied across the chamber. I have listened to those on both sides who are more expert than I putting their points of view as to which government has had the better education policy, which government has spent more on education, which government has spent that amount of money more wisely. But I think if I speak in general terms there are certain things I do not think can be denied. Before the Labor Party came to office in 1972 there was a great concern in this country for the lack of expenditure on education and the apparent lack of progress and planning and the lack of any idea of where we were going in education in this country. This concern was expressed by parents. It was expressed by teachers who complained of a lack of aids, both human and physical, and who complained of a lack of proper facilities. No one denies that situation exists. No one denies that that situation had a great influence on the 1 972 election.

I do not believe that anyone can deny that the former Minister for Education, Mr Beazley, and the Government that was in power from 1972 to 1975 greatly changed the education system in this country. It established commissions that were very important. It increased expenditures which were necessary and which were necessarily large to make up for the neglect in education in the past. It increased funding and expenditure and the standard of state and independent schools at all levels in this country and I believe- I think everyone will concede this- it produced a vast improvement in the system. The fact that the present Government is continuing at about that increased level of expenditure- there have been cuts in some areas and there have been increases in some areas, but there has been no attempt as yet and I hope there will be no attempt in the future to drop the level of expenditure on education back to the percentage of the gross domestic product which applied before 1972-1 believe is further evidence of the justice and the need for the policies that were introduced by Mr Beazley and by the Labor Government. I do not think that can be denied. I think the present Government’s actions bear that out.

Mr Beazley was the overseer of a new concept in education m this country. It was the concept of the establishment of national guidelines at all levels of education, the provision of adequate funds by the government best able to produce those funds- the Federal Government. I think the important concept that was introduced was the concept of funding to those schools and those institutions which were in greatest need, be they government schools or be they independent schools. One hopes that the reintroduction of per capita grants, so prominent in the statement of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick), will not take us away fom this concept of need, this concept of getting some sort of equality of opportunity in education in this country.

Of course there were mistakes. There had to be mistakes. There had to be mistakes in what was a revolution in education and a revolution in expenditure over those 3 years- over those two eighteen-month terms of government. It was a plan which had to make up for what we saw as a desperate need and the Government’s establishment of expenditure at the same sorts of levels shows that the present Government accepts that that sort of need existed. Most of the examples of the so-called mistakes that I have heard put forward in debates in this Senate and in the other House have been the nitpicking examples of equipment going to the wrong schools, usually in a small country town or inappropriate equipment going to the wrong schools. This sort of nitpicking example is brought up all the dme and it will be brought up in any system which is changing rapidly, any system which is having a large amount of money spent on it according to need. It is better to make a few mistakes in areas like that than to neglect the whole system and deny our children a proper education.

I believe there were mistakes in priority. I said in this place when my party was in office- I will come to this later- that I would have changed the priorities. I would have perhaps done something before something else was done, but government and government action is a system of sitting down, looking at the facts, listening to the applications that are made, looking at the areas where it is considered there is the greatest need and coming to a compromise situation which we can best work out.

In the case of technical education I have said in this place that the Government in office before 1972 and perhaps the Government which I supported should have put technical education on a slighty higher level but as I will come to later there is a reason why we could not go ahead as rapidly with technical and further education as we could with the other forms of tertiary education, namely universities and colleges of advanced education.

Before I do that I would like to talk generally for a moment about the sort of things that has been talked about in education over the last few months. It is the sort of thing that has been talked about in other areas such as social security and health. This is of very real concern in the communityof concern to both sides of this Parliament and it is whether we are in fact spending our money wisely and getting the results we want. It is an evaluation of what we are doing. Evaluation in education, I believe, is very difficult. There are some people who judge the success of an education system on the ability of the few people they come across to spell correctly or to count correctly or to do differential calculus correctly. There are some who judge it by the degree of acceptance of the products of that education system in the society in which they live. This has gone on since time immemorial. People have judged the products of the education system by the degree with which the students or the graduates accept the status quo in our society.

There are those who judge it by manners, by degree of articulation or the erudition of the products of the system. For some months in this country a series of glib articles has appeared in newspapers and magazines referring to educational shame and educational crisis. In fact they are going on at the moment. The articles talk about lack of literacy, lack of numeracy and lack of knowledge and use all sorts of parameters. In my view all these judgments are subjective judgments because in none of these articles can we find objective criteria against which the authors ‘ views can be measured.

I give Senator Carrick credit that he pointed out during question time one day in this place that through time immemorial, from the time of the ancient Greeks and probably before that, the elders have complained about the faults of the young, about their behaviour, their spelling, their manners and everything else. At the moment the complaint seems to be more about their length of hair. An example of some of the sort of stupid and glib comment we are seeing in the general Press today was the comment that was pointed out by so many people. Some gentlemen said that 50 per cent of the students aged 12 in a certain State of Australia are below average in their reading ability. If 50 per cent of them were not below average one would wonder how the average was worked out.

Senator Martin:

– Your mathematics are a bit shaky.

Senator GRIMES:

-I would expect that 50 per cent would be below average. I am not talking about the mean- 49.9 per cent, if you like. I believe that where possible we should carry out evaluation in education the same as we should carry it out in the field of social security, in the field of medicine and in every other field of activity. But it must be based on objective measurement and known standards. Not all areas of education are able to be judged on objective measurements and known standards. The standards that are used must not be based on the philosophical, ideological, moral or any other prejudices of the people in power or the people influencing the education system. I think we would all do well to look with a jaundiced eye at the glib sort of articles appearing at the moment. I am not saying that there is no concern about the education system in this country; I am not saying that there is no reason for any concern about the education system in Australia; but the way we evaluate a system and the way we get the answers, if there are answers, Will not be by glib articles in newspapers or magazines or anything else, written quickly, full of cliches, full of ‘good hard news’ as it is called, full of eye-catching phrases which are of no assistance to any of us in debate and which can mislead considerably.

There are those people in the community who have a genuine concern about education. I have said that I have always been concerned about where we place technical education in this country. I expressed the view when we were in Government that perhaps technical education had too low a priority. But I realise that one of the reasons why technical education had a low priority- apart from the usual reasons in the community that universities and later on colleges of advanced education were the prestige institutions, that people who went to them generally did not get their hands dirty and all the other reasons that we know about- was that when an investigation was held into technical education in Australia and the Kangan Report came out, as in so many reports we found that he asked many difficult questions. In many cases he asked more questions that he had answers for. This is not meant in any critical way at all. This inquiry was really the first close look at technical education in this community.

In some States we had no idea of the size of the problem. I can remember that in one State there was great difficulty and I do not think the people there ever found out exactly how many technical and further education students there were. In some States there were no real plans about where technical and further education would go. But we did know that the equipment was inadequate in most States, that the buildings were inadequatein come cases they were highly dangerousin some States and that technical education had been left behind. In a society like ours this is a serious and difficult situation. It is going to need the future builders, the people who maintain our transport systems, the people who maintain our energy systems, the people who build our houses and our buildings and the people who repair our houses and the multitude of machinery that we use in them.

This is a very difficult situation. It is even more difficult when we have, as we have at the moment, an economic recession which will end some time, although some of us do not know when. Some of us have doubts that it will end. When we do have an economic recovery we will have a shortage of the technical people who will be needed to boost that recovery; if they are not there, if there is a shortage of them, it will mean that the technical assistance we need at that time will be more expensive under the supply and demand system we have.

Of course there are difficulties in training technical personnel in Australia. There are difficulties in an apprenticeship system which originated a couple of centuries ago and of which relics exist at the moment. Australia has to come to grips with that system. It is utterly wrong for Senator Jessop to say that the unions will not come to grips with that system. Many of the leading unionists in this country spend a lot of time talking about how they can get away from the rigid apprenticeship system they have. Of course they are concerned about maintaining the standards in their industry. They need some reassurance that their members will not be exploited, that their new members will not be of a low standard, that their present members will not suffer by some change in the system. But they want to cooperate and they will co-operate. It seems that the situation is difficult because industry, unions and government until recently have not got together on this problem. But we can get together on the problem. We can do it and we must do it. If we do not, we will be hogtied by an archiac system which has outlived its usefulness and which is not keeping up with the modern changes in industry.

In technology and in technical education in general as a result of the various reports on education we do know more. We can plan more. We need to give technical education a higher priority. Therefore the Opposition is disappointed that the increase in this area of spending was not as great as we would have liked and was not as great as I believe the people in technical education would have expected. One can expect that the universities, the schools and the colleges of advanced education in some way would have the increase in their level of expenditure level out. I do not believe we can say that about the technical schools. I do not believe that exhorting the States to spend more on technical education and getting away from the very real federal responsibility is worthwhile. I do not think it will assist us and it will leave us lacking the very people we need in the future. This does not mean that I advocate necessarily a cutting back in the levels of expenditure on general education courses, of courses in the liberal arts. I believe these should be expanded but not expanded in the rigid institutions in which they frequently exist now. They must be made attractive and accessible to those people in an age when we have increasing leisure, when we will continue to have increasing leisure that can be utilised to improve the life style of the people of Australia and the people of the world.

The concept of continuing education through the lifetime, I believe, is a good one. It believe it needs assistance and encouragement. It particularly needs assistance and encouragement in a world that is dominated by television and other forms of instant pleasure. It is dominated by the tendency for people to expect to get their pleasure and leisure easily. It will not come easily. It will be assisted if we can expand this area of education.

If I may be excused, I would like to introduce a local issue- a procedure very strange for Tasmanian senators. I feel obliged to talk about a specific problem in Tasmania because it was brought up in another place. I believe I should balance the picture that was given in the other place. I refer to the situation of post-secondary education in general in Tasmania, in particular the College of Advanced Education in Tasmania. Previous Ministers for Education, in both the Federal Government and the State Government, had been made aware by many members of Parliament, by many citizens of Tasmania and by members of both sides of this House that there seemed to be a problem. A situation was created in good faith. A college of advanced education was developed in Tasmania. The head campus, the campus where the authorities were, the controlling campus was in southern Tasmania. Another campus was in northern Tasmania, at Newnham. The northern college, it seemed to us, was unnecessarily subservient to the southern one. It was unnecessarily inhibited in its progress by the fact that the centre of control was away from the campus in the north. This was not the intention when the college was set up.

It was felt by some of us that because of its lack of autonomy, because of its distance from the main campus, because of the natural tendency, about which I heard Senator Martin speak in this place on other occasions, of some people in education to indulge in empire building- a tendency that is not confined to education, a tendency that I believe is probably worse in medicine and even occurs in Parliament -

Senator Martin:

– I said that the educationists were leading the way. I did not say it was confined to them.

Senator GRIMES:

-That was another occasion, not this debate. It seemed to some of us that the situation may be getting out of hand, that there was considerable disquiet. To get an unbiased assessment of what was going on, to get a dispassionate look at the situation, both Ministers for Education established a committee of inquiry under Professor Karmel into postsecondary education in Tasmania. Some of us thought that this was important. Both parties agreed that a maritime college should be established at or about the College of Advanced Education and that this may be the basis of a specialised course around which an autonomous college could arise, in the way that the University of New England and other universities grew.

The Karmel Committee, consisting of expert, dispassionate people, met, considered the problems at length and suggested solutions to problems about which some of us had talked. It suggested that the disquiet was soundly based and that the situation in Tasmania, leading to a concentration of tertiary courses in Hobart, in one section of a State that is decentralised, was unreal. It recommended, among other things, a transfer of the centre of advanced education from Hobart to the north. It made other recommendations concerned with the availability of correspondence courses. The report was later looked at by Mr Cosgrove, a distinguished Tasmanian, concerning the application of the report. It was modified by him, but the basic principles remained. The Committee’s general principles were upheld by both parties- Labor and Liberal. What happened then has happened previously. It is something which all of us have to bear. It is a salutory lesson to those who have to deal with the education establishment.

All hell broke loose. People wrote letters and produced pamphlets. There were scurrilous outbursts. Members of Parliament were lobbied and abused. I am not saying that any of this was illegal or even immoral. People did everything to prevent the implementation of the report. The Australian Union of University Students came into the act. It sent its education officer to Hobart. He came to Hobart, spoke to people, made a Press statement that night condemning the Karmel proposals, then came to Launceston to get an unbiased look at the situation. This sort of situation always arises. Both political parties at Federal and State level have agreed to the principles of the report. However, the issue has become complicated by what I consider are unreasonable statements by 2 members of the House of Representatives who represent electorates in southern Tasmania. I know they have their electorates to look after. I know that tub thumping and parochialism are important. However I trunk they should look at the report as dispassionately as their colleagues have done. I believe that they should look at the report and see the reasons for the recommendations which have been accepted by both State and Federal governments- the present State and Federal governments. I think they should realise that the committee, an outside, expert committee, looked dispassionately at the problem, gave its reasons for the decisions and set out its reasons carefully.

Every submission which I have seen which is against the proposals was self-seeking and had to do with local factors alone. I praise those rational men of both political parties, including Mr Batt, Senator Rae, the present Minister for Education Senator Carrick, who looked at the problem and made their judgments after a dispassionate look at the problem. I accept the concern of those people who for genuine reasons were concerned at the original concept of Karmel of transferring what were essentially CAE courses to a university. That has been corrected. I believe that those who take a blind, parochial view and who adopt the blind principle ‘what we have we hold at any cost ‘, without looking at the facts, do none of us a good service and certainly do not make the future of education planning in this community any easier. They certainly make it very difficult to get a rational and unemotional debate on the problem. They could have- I am glad they have not- destroyed a good report and a good plan.

I have given my reasons, by referring to technical and further education, for supporting the amendment moved by Senator Wriedt. It is an expression of concern. It is an expression of our genuine concern that more assistance will be needed in the technical field in future, both to provide us with the technicians to keep our society going and, if I can extend it, to provide the increasing pleasure and the increasing use of the concept of continuing education which I believe have been well established in this country. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I thank all honourable senators who took part in this debate. Eleven senators spoke. In my view, all contributions were of a worthwhile nature. I commend those senators for their bipartisan approach. There is no doubt that education is regarded as being of the highest priority. I will keep my comments at the end of the second reading debate short because of the necessity to get these Bills through, for financing purposes. I therefore shall not be able to respond to all of the points made by honourable senators who spoke. I shall take notice of them and respond in other ways, either by letter or verbally.

It is a simple fact that over the whole of the post war years the governments of the day have given to education a very major place in the political sun. The great pioneering of education was done by the Menzies governments of the 1950s and the 1960s which established the way by setting the path first with the Universities Commissions which embodied the concept of a statutory authority, followed by the establishment of the Commission of Advanced Education which reached towards indirect supports into post secondary and secondary education. The progress continued. With the change of government, the Whitlam Government followed along by creating similar bodies in the technical and schools area. We, the Fraser Government, have adopted a new threshold and moved forward.

It is true- and I say it not in a partisan waythat the calendar year 1 976 as determined by the Whitlam Government of 1975 was a setback for education. Some attempts have been made to put a gloss on the figures. The simple fact is that all governments have accepted that education figures are laid down by the calendar year and not by the financial year. The Opposition, to put a better gloss on the matter, is seeking to use financial years. The decision in the Labor Government’s 1975 Budget, made in terms of the calendar year, on which indeed all education commissions operate, showed a cutback of $ 105m for all 4 education commissions and a significant cutback for technical and further education. I was surprised, therefore, that the Labor Party should seek tonight to move an amendment to suggest that it has some special interest in technical education that it has treasured over the years. This is not true. The fact is that there was a cutback which we have restored.

Statements on education covering the broad philosophy of these 8 Bills have been made by me on a number of occasions lately. Of the 8 Bills, four are simply supplementation of previous legislation while the other four are implementation of the new philosophies within the 4 different education commission reports and the Government’s initiatives. I have made a number of statements on these matters. The main statement was made some week or more ago embracing the 4 Bills. A statement was made on student allowances, making an increase in expenditure, in very difficult times, of some $50m for the calendar year ahead. I made a statement today on loans guarantees and on forward commitments on school building in independent schools. I foreshadow further statements all in a progress plan for reform in education.

If one looks at the Bills before the Senate tonight, one will see quite a number of most significant innovations. Guidelines were given to the commissions. So, it is not surprising that, in general terms, the Government has accepted the reports of those commissions. The guidelines included in the Schools Commission area are new looks at disadvantaged country schools, boarding schools in the country, indexation in linking payments to independent schools to the cost of a State high school or primary school. Together with the moves that I have foreshadowed in terms of loans guarantees and forward commitments, these represent a whole series of new initiatives at a time of very great difficulty for the Federal Government, when what we have sought to do is to maintain real values and to be able to give some forward planning.

In a world in which other countries are tending to cut education expenditure, what we have done is to give education a forward plan in the form of a triennial concept or a triennial plan. In this concept we have a rolling triennium which, in an inflationary period, enables forward commitments in principle and enables forward planning. Those who tend to decry the rolling triennium nevertheless fail to realise that when one picks up the triennial reports of the 4 education commissions one finds proof of the rolling triennium principle which provides a plan for the year immediately ahead and the projection for the 2 years after that. Those who seek to deride that concept and to go back either to the single year or to the rigid year fail to understand that the rigid triennium, itself an impossibility at a time of inflation, has an end of the plank to it. Many people fear the rigid triennium because, when they come to the end of the 3 years, they do not know at what level the plank will be in the future; whereas in the concept of a rolling triennium there is always a forward path which is a most valuable concept for those who are planning.

Taken under these circumstances, the action that we have taken to restore the cuts in education, to restore triennia, to overcome the freeze in student allowances and to introduce new concepts of allowances and new policies represents a story of very considerable achievement and indeed is to be allied to future policies foreshadowed for even greater reforms. This action must be viewed against the announcement by the Federal Government of its plan to have the most comprehensive inquiry into education in Australia’s history. It must be understood that here is a Commonwealth initiative to look towards the goals of education for the year 2000 and beyond, to look to the goals of human fulfilment, to the things of the spirit and of the heart as well as of the mind, and to look to the real things also of education and its role in vocation and in vocational orientation and fulfilment. These are all major matters and could be dwelt upon.

Many things were said tonight upon which I would like to comment. One matter mentioned was isolated children. In this respect, I was happy to receive many letters from isolated children ‘s associations throughout Australia commending us upon what we had done and saying that in our allowances provided to them we had gone beyond their hopes. That, I think, is a nice comment to have. There were requests for specific commitments. On the question of the Dripstone high school in the Northern Territory, we will do what we can to ensure that that high school opens on time to meet the demands. We cannot overcome the years that have been wasted, the disaster of the Darwin cyclone and the slow recovery and the slow building that went on in the months and years that followed. We cannot do that. We inherited these problems. We will do the best that we can in this matter. All of these matters are important.

Having said that here is an exciting panorama of these great gains for education at a time of economic recession, I comment that we will reject the amendment moved by the Labor Party because we have recognised more than the Labor Party that technical education deserves a better go. We have moved it into a further place in the sun. We have made a commitment towards it. We have asked that, in the Williams Committee inquiry, considerable significance be given to post secondary education in terms of vocation. Therefore, we have set the pace and the amendment is superfluous.

Senator Grimes commented on the difficulties in Tasmania. I do not seek at all to exacerbate a difficult situation, nor do I want to enter in any partisan way into the matter. I simply say that the mechanical decisions as to what forms of acceptance there should be of the Karmel report in terms of the institutions must be solely for the Neilson Government. The Neilson Government has the sole constitutional right and responsibility for the institutions within Tasmania. Any decisions must be the problem of the State Government of Tasmania. The problem comes to the Federal Government when it comes to funding and talks on funding between the commissions concerned. I have indicated to the

Premier that I will welcome talks. I have indicated to the State Education Minister that I would welcome making available my own officers from the commissions for discussions.

I conclude by reiterating that I believe that the 1 1 senators who spoke made a very worthwhile contribution; that the points that they made will certainly be considered; that it is good to see that both sides of the House support the principle of high priority for education. Perhaps one of the most heartening things I heard tonight was the expression of a number of Labor senators commending the disappearance of bigotry and sectarianism in education in Australia. For my part, for some 20 years, I have sought to see that all Australian students, from whatever families, from whatever socio-economic or religious grouping, should have the highest education that Australia can afford. It is a goal of the Government to provide true equality of opportunity for all, whether handicapped or not, and to provide equality of freedom of choice as between the streams of education. I hope to walk in great pride in a bipartisan fashion with the Opposition in support of these goals. I commend the 8 Bills to the Senate.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills together read a second time.

In Committee

The Bills.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– During his reply the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) reintroduced the matter of expenditure by the Labor Government on technical education. Before I proceed with comment on that, I draw to the attention of the Committee the procedures we are adopting in taking these Bills cognately through the Committee stage. My remarks are applicable not just to this case but to future cases. We will be doing this with other Bills before the Parliament rises. We should carefully avoid repetition of what happened last night when there was a misunderstanding about the Bills being dealt with. Unfortunately last night one Bill was reported before matters had been dealt with adequately at the Committee stage. This was completely because of a misunderstanding. There was no intention on anybody’s part for it to happen. I suggest we exercise care in our legislative program during the next few weeks, because legislation will be going through fairly rapidly.

I make one thing clear relating to the amendment that was moved at the second reading stage. During the period the Labor Government was in office there was a quite spectacular increase in technical education expenditure at the Federal level. I do not wish to go through the figures again because we have had this debate on past occasions, but in view of the fact that figures were given by the Minister, I believe for the sake of the record of this debate I should again refer to the Treasurer’s statement in the Budget papers this year. In 1972-73 the Labor Government inherited an expenditure on technical education of approximately $ 1 3m. In our last Budget before we went out of office, that is the 1975-76 Budget, we had increased the amount to no less than $65m, which is well over a 300 per cent increase in the 3 years in which the Australian Labor Party was in office. We stand by the statement we made and the amendment we moved to the effect that there remains a need for greater emphasis in the technical area. I do not think this really should be the subject of debate amongst us any more because it is recognised on both sides of the chamber that this is where the major thrust has to take place. There is a difference between us as to degree. We in the Opposition say, of course, that there should be a greater allocation of funds to technical education; but the principle is recognised now by this Parliament as a whole, and to that extent at least we have made progress in the Parliament.

I wish to move on behalf of the Opposition 2 amendments to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill, both of which were moved the last time we debated States Grants legislation relating to schools earlier this year and which the Opposition still feels disposed to move. The first amendment is to clause 7 sub-clause (3), which states:

  1. ) At any time, and from time to time, during the year to which this Act applies, but subject to sub-section (4), the Commonwealth Education Minister may, at the request of the State Education Minister for a State, direct that this Act has effect as if the amounts specified in columns 2 and 3 of Schedule 1 opposite to the name of the State were varied in accordance with the direction, and, where the Commonwealth Education Minister gives a direction with respect to the variation of those amounts, then, for the purposes of this Act (including this sub-section and sub-section (2) and (4)), there shall be deemed to have been specified in that Schedule (as from the commencing day), in substitution for those amounts, the amounts as so varied.

The second amendment is to clause 12, which in part states:

  1. The financial assistance to a State constituted by a payment of moneys under sub-section ( 1 ) (in this sub-section referred to as the ‘relevant financial assistance’) is granted on the conditions that-

    1. the relevant financial assistance will, as soon as is practicable, be applied by the State, according to the respective needs of the schools concerned, for the purpose of meeting recurrent expenditure in respect of the year to which this Act applies in connexion with government primary schools and government secondary schools in the State and, in particular, will ensure that such part of the relevant financial assistance as is not less than the amount specified in column 2 of Schedule 3 opposite to the name of the State is applied in respect of recurrent expenditure in relation to migrant education provided at those schools;

I seek leave to move the 2 amendments together.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I move:

  1. 1 ) In clause 7, sub-clause ( 3 ), line 20, after ‘State ‘, insert but only after consultation with the Schools Commission and report to the Parliament,’.
  2. In clause 12, after paragraph (a) of sub-clause (2), insert the following new paragraph:

*(aa) after consultation with the Schools Commission, the Commonwealth-Education Minister may permit the allocation of a specific amount from a school’s allocation to be spent at the discretion of the school board; ‘.

In respect of the first amendment, we are concerned with the clause which deals with grants for recurrent expenditure. This concerns the matter of transfers which now appear to be permissible between recurrent and capital allocations. Without restating the argument we have put previously, I refer to this year’s Schools Commission report and the Commission’s apparent acceptance of the transfer that took place m respect of Queensland and New South Wales. I make it clear that although in the eyes of the Commission there was apparently justification for this transfer- we accept that- we hope that the Government will observe what the Commission has said. On page 46 of its report it states:

The adjustments are for 1977 in the first instance and are not to be considered permanent adjustments. Indeed the relative needs for recurrent funds in subsequent years will not take account of the drain on the current account caused by this transfer. Both States will be expected to negotiate an acceptable level of forward commitments for both recurrent and capital funds for 1978 and 1979.

I hope that the Government will observe what appears to me from that reading to be a temporary situation that applied in special circumstances. I hope that we will not see this become a permanent feature, because we believe that there is a risk of the undermining of the needs principle to which we are firmly committed.

I shall deal with the other clauses together. I refer to the section of Part III which deals with grants for recurrent expenditure and which concerns payments to schools. Honourable senators will recall that on the last occasion that the Opposition moved this amendment, which was a Schools Commission recommendation and which provided for a specific amount for the schools to be spent at the discretion of the school boards, the argument was that the amendment was rejected at that time on the ground that it would not be appropriate to introduce a provision whereby the Commonwealth could direct funds in this way. It was only yesterday that we dealt with the two new federalism Bills on local government and State grants, in which the Commonwealth has no hesitation in directing the States to do certain things with those moneys. As we know, this has been a bone of contention for some weeks between the Federal Government and the States. Yet that principle apparently is not to be applied in this case. I draw the Minister’s attention to his statement of 4 November in which he said:

The Government welcomes moves by school communities and State governments to encourage a more active role for parents, teachers and local communities in school management and decision-making.

That was quite a sensible statement and again one which presumably is not to be accepted by the Government despite the recommendations of the Schools Commission. There is one other matter I wish to raise, but presumably the Minister will wish to comment on the amendments at this stage.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I will be very brief indeed because the arguments of the Government in opposition to both these measures are recorded in Hansard in a previous debate. As to the first amendment, there is a complete lack of necessity to talk of consultation between the Government and the Schools Commission. There is a general acceptance and no need at all to write into the legislation any concept that a government shall discuss with its advisers, statutory or otherwise, certain matters. This is taken for granted, and I give an assurance that at all times on such matters the Government will be in full consultation with the Schools Commission. Honourable senators should know that sub-clause (5) of clause 7 of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill says:

As soon as practicable after the Minister has given a direction under sub-section (2) or (3), he shall cause a statement setting out particulars of the direction to be laid before each House of the Parliament.

So the Bill provides the major safeguard that is necessary in this case. A request is made from the

State for a transfer between recurrent and capital. A discussion takes place with the advisers. A decision is made by the Commonwealth in favour of the State, and as soon as possible the evidence of that decision is tabled in the Parliament, and so the proprietary of the Senate and of the Parliament is carried out. It is possible then for the Minister and the Government to be wholly accountable for their actions. That, in our view, is in full discharge.

As to the second question, unfortunately Senator Wriedt did not carry on reading the statement of mine in which I said that my Government commends the States and local government bodies for decentralisation and devolution. I think that the next sentence said that it is competent for the States within the recurrent funds made available to them to make funds available to schools, school boards and local communities. That was the sentence that was left out and therefore the meaning was distorted. Let me make this clear. In 1975 the Schools Commission suggested that this might happen. We said that it is not for the Federal Government itself to make decisions as to the individual government schools, one by onesome 7000 or more of them throughout Australia. The clear sovereignty, as understood and practised throughout Australia is that all traffic with State government schools lies with the State government of the day and we will see that that is so, but we have made available moneys and it is possible for the States to do this. If I had time I would be able to indicate that State after State right throughout Australia is today devolving very significant funds upon individual schools and upon individual State school boards. There is evidence to show that what is sought to be achieved is happening voluntarily now. The greatest single pressure that one would need is not the force of centralist legislation but the knowledge of parent and community bodies that the funds are available and that the States can be pressed into making those funds available. The Government rejects the two amendments.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– I would like to ask a question. I refer the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) to clause 3 (2) of the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill. In doing so I refer to the last paragraph of the Minister’s second reading speech in which he said:

The BUI also provides the first grants for programs to be carried out by non-government adult education bodies.

Can the Minister give me some idea of what is meant by ‘non-government adult education bodies’? Are they adult education bodies? Are they schools for truck drivers, hair dressers or ap- prentices? Are they private coaching schools? Just what are the non-government adult education bodies referred to?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I did not hear the full question but if it is not imperative to this decision may I take it as a question on notice and supply the answer?

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate · Tasmania

– I will not delay the Committee. Perhaps the Minister for Education will reply to me by letter rather than discuss the matter now. I ask him what consultation there was with the non-government schools sector in respect of the supported schools program. Will he also confirm or deny whether the $lm which was provided for by the Commission or estimated to be the first year to be provided for the supported schools program was in fact transferred to level 6 primary schools in the non-government sector plus Sim from the innovations program which I understand was also transferred to raise the level of funding for level 6 primary schools? I suggest that the Minister may reply to that at a later stage. I would be satisfied if he would do so.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I shall write to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) on the question of supported schools. On the other matter I can reply very quickly. The $0.9m set aside for supported schools was applied to level 6 and level 6 wholly. The $0.9m taken from the innovations program was provided for level 6 wholly. The whole $ 1.8m went into the 90 per cent of primary school students who are at the lowest level, level 6.

Amendments negatived.

Bills agreed to.

Bills reported without amendments; report adopted.

Third Readings

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

page 2092

ADJOURNMENT

East Timor

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 1 1 p.m., in accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-Within the next 24 hours the United Nations will be discussing for the fourth time the problem of East Timor and the annexation of that territory by Indonesia. It is to be hoped that on this occasion the Australian Government will associate itself with the overwhelming majority of other countries in condemning the continued occupation of East Timor by Indonesia which almost a year ago without provocation and without lawful excuse invaded the country and then carried through the farce which it claimed to be an act of self-determination.

It is to be hoped that the Australian Government will not bow to pressures from Indonesia and that it will, in fact, ally itself with majority opinion and again demand the withdrawal of Indonesian troops from East Timor. During 1975 and 1976 a number of senators from both the Government and Opposition sides of the chamber have endeavoured to represent the views of the Timorese people and to express their desires for self-determination. However, it has to be said that those pleas have not been accepted by the Government and Australia has taken steps this year which must be regarded as unfriendly acts. They must be regarded as regarding the pleas of the people of Timor in such a way as to prevent their exercising an act of selfdetermination.

On 2 1 September I asked Senator Withers, following questions raised by members of bis own Party about what was taking place in East Timor, a question concerning statements published in the Melbourne Herald which claimed to be a summary of discussions between Mr Malik and Mr Peacock. Today the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Withers, was kind enough to give me a reply in which Mr Peacock, via the Prime Minister, assured us that not on any occasion did Mr Peacock assure the Indonesian Foreign Minister that the Australian Government understood that Indonesia had to annex East Timor.

So Mr Malik was soon again to be misleading world opinion and to be misreading the Australian position. Of course, this is not the first time that Mr Malik has done that. During 1975 he made numerous statements which sought to suggest that Australia understood the position. It might be recalled that the Prime Minister of Australia in 1975, Mr Whitlam, had his position misrepresented by the same Mr Malik. This was so in particular in the release of so-called cables several months ago. I think we have to come to the conclusion, therefore, that Mr Malik handles the truth very carelessly and that he is prepared to prejudice the position of the Australian Government, whether it be the previous Government or the present Government.

What we are concerned about- I think all Australians ought to be concerned about this- is the continuing occupation of East Timor by Indonesia and the perpetration of atrocities that are clearly taking place in the former Portuguese colony. When I asked a question today, for example, of Senator Carrick on Telecom I though I would have received a reply in which the Minister indicated that he understood the issues related to Timor, because he was a member of an Australian force which was there during World War II. It was a force known as the Sparrow Force’. I would have expected that the Minister would have been prepared to do more than just reply to me in terms similar to the prepaid reply given in the House of Representatives. He gave me a lengthy reply and said that, of course, the decision to stop Telecom from receiving or conveying messages for East Timor was due to it being outside of Telecom’s responsibility to convey overseas messages.

The facts are that, whatever may be said about the deficiencies of the previous Government, this Government has for its own reasons which I find hard to comprehend taken steps to deny any facilities for the people of Timor to express themselves. Firstly, it has denied facilities for the United Nations representative, Mr Guicciardi, and secondly, it has closed down the radio station. Now, for the third time, it has taken the step of denying even the receipt of messages from Timor to Australia. What I find difficult to understand is why the Minister said that there were considerable doubts as to the authenticity of the messages. That leads me to the conclusion that the Government does not accept the authenticity of the messages, and that therefore they ought to be terminated and not conveyed to the Australian people.

Of course, these messages come out of Timor, are received by Telecom, and on occasions are published in the Australian newspapers. It is for us to decide whether those messages are true or false. We do not expect the Australian Government to act as a censor, any more than we would expect Australian newspapers to do so. I think we are entitled to read these messages and form our own independent judgments. So I think I am entitled to say that the statement made by Senator Carrick is deliberately deceptive and inhumane and is an attempt to adhere to the demands of the Indonesian Government. One cannot understand or accept any reason why the Australian Government would go out of its way to deny this very elementary facility of conveying communications.

We know that the Indonesians have repeatedly called upon the Australian Government to put an end to Fretilin representatives acting freely in Australia. I find this a denial of hospitality which was accorded to the Australian troops during World War II. Having regard to his own involvement, I would have thought that Senator Carrick in particular would have adopted a more intelligent, humane and compassionate attitude in response to that question which was placed before him by Senator Georges initially and subsequently by me. The Fraser Government seems to have meekly accepted the Indonesian representation. Not only has it acted to prevent information coming out of East Timor but it has also refused visas to 2 Fretilin representatives, Man Alkatiri and Mr Rogiero Lobato. I met the 2 Lobato brothers when I was in Timor in 1975. I cannot understand how one of these gentlemen could possibly be construed to represent any threat to Indonesia or Australia and why he should be denied an opportunity to come to Australia and talk to the Government, members of the Parliament and the Australian people. Mr Lobato is a representative of the provisional government which was established prior to the invasion of Timor in December last year.

I wonder why it is that every possible step is being taken by this Government to deny Timor any form of contact with the outside world. If the Indonesian Government feels that is has the authority to move into Timor and make the expression of self-determination itself I think it has to be said that Indonesia cannot claim to represent the Timorese people when, in fact, all the leaders of the Timorese independence movement are still alive and happy in Timor. That is to say they are being nurtured and protected by the people of Timor in the same fashion as Australian troops were during World War II. One would imagine that if any of the members of the provisional government had been captured by the Indonesian forces who are in Timor in great numbers, we would have heard something about it. No member of the provisional government, the liberation forces or the independence movement has, in fact, been captured. That was the experience of the Australian troops during World War II. Such is the terrain of Timor and the tenacity of its people that when they feel their cause is right they will protect those whom they believe are their friends. They did that for many years during World War II. They have done it for the whole of 1976.

I wonder how much pressure has been exerted on the Australian Government by Australian Embassy officials in Jakarta. Reports were published in newspapers which indicated that Mr Woolcott, Australia’s Ambassador to Indonesia, was in fact representing a certain point of view to the Australian Government. Government leaders and supporters in this place might say: ‘Well, that is a newspaper report’. We have no other way of judging whether pressure was brought to bear on the Australian Government because we have had no opportunity to establish the veracity or otherwise of those statements. They were not denied by the Australian Government. Therefore, one is entitled to draw the conclusion that the Australian Government has bowed to the pressure of Indonesia or the persuasion or Mr Woolcott. Now that the Government has instructed Telecom not to receive messages from or deliver messages to East Timor, I think we are entitled to say that it is acquiescing in the Indonesian demands and that this is a high point of foolishness and inhumanity. It is a foolish decision because our long term interests are not served by obeying Indonesia ‘s every whim.

This is more so when one considers how Papua New Guinea must view our marshmallow reactions to the Generals. Only recently the Indonesians informed General Diro from Papua New Guinea that if Indonesia felt that its socalled national interests were threatened by internal Papua New Guinea politics- there has been some expression of this in the Press- they would then be forced to act. In other words, the Indonesians were prepared to intimidate the internal political movement in Papua New Guinea. The rights or wrongs of the situation I leave aside. The fact is that they are prepared to express public views which must be considered to be intimidatory of the internal political movement in that country. Let us remember what happened in West Irian. Let us remember what is happening in East Timor. Let us remember that these threats are now being made against Papua New Guinea.

It is indeed a myopic view of our own longterm interest to accede so readily to this pressure. It is also foolish because it shows the rest of the world just how unprincipled and lacking in will Australia seems to have become. Just 6 months after finally supporting East Timor in the United Nations expediency seems to be the rule of the day. It is about time this Government stood firm for some major principles. It is about time this Government reaffirmed Australia’s position in the United Nations and established a modicum of relationship between the independence movement of Timor and this country.

The decision to try to cut off this last contact with the world is inhumane. We all know what happened to the members of the Australian media- the journalists and television crew- who went to Timor for the very purpose of reporting the events in September, October and November of last year. We all know that they were shot down in cold blood. There is some evidence now from unimpeachable sources that Roger East, who was in Dih the day of the occupation, was attempting to send a message to Australia about the invasion that was taking place and that he, likewise, was shot down in cold blood.

As I have said, this decision is inhumane. It is an attempt further to isolate the suffering and the heroism of the East Timorese people from Australia and from the world community. I do not know what else one has to do to try to get from this Government some degree of understanding, some compassion and some cooperation. It is utterly despicable and callous to close down a mere communication link. I do not know how Australia can parade with any degree of self respect in the world’s forum at the United Nations meeting now taking place as a result of the decision that has been taken in the last few days. Here we have Telecom- a statutory authority; a body set up by the decision of this Parliament- being directed by the Australian Government to sever a communications link.

The Minister in his reply to the question today said that the authenticity of the cables is in doubt. I believe that is a sham. But even if it is not, surely we are entitled to read about the situation there, surely we are entitled to receive the cables and surely we are entitled to make our own judgments. I suggest that the Minister ought to contact the Joint Intelligence Organisation and the other intelligence bodies that operate covertly in this country. I know that they will tell him that those communications are authentic. I am not suggesting that every phrase and every word can be properly accepted. As with all communications, there is some degree of emphasis which might otherwise be avoided. But the fact is that our Intelligence Organisation confirms the authenticity of these cables originating in East Timor. More than anything else, therefore, the closure of the Telecom link seeks to deny to the world as well as to Australia any information about the independence movement in East Timor. It seeks to hide the brutality of the Indonesian troops in East Timor. It seeks to hide from the public information about the growing resistance movement in East Timor. It is a direct manoeuvre to cover up the real nature of the continuing war and, as such, the decision must be and will be condemned by public opinion not only in Australia but also in many other countries.

The messages sent through Telecom gave us an impression of a brutalised people continuing to fight for their rights and ideals. That is not a very pretty picture, but it is generally a realistic one. In the absence of any independent observers, journalists or aid agency people, the messages virtually are the only remaining public source of information about the war. Obviously the pro-Indonesian Government sources must be discounted, whether they come from Dih or from Jakarta. We all will remember the descriptions of the Indonesian volunteers who landed on Timor by parachute and from warships. Volunteers! Surely honourable Senators on the Government side cannot accept a puerile description of that sort. This incredible he has been added to significantly since the emblazoned headlines which appeared in the Indonesian Times of 8 December 1975, when the Indonesians told the world that they were going into East Timor to liberate the people of East Timor.

We are fortunate now to be receiving private documents and eye witness accounts of the situation in East Timor. They come from courageous people whose liberty, as well as that of their friends, could be in jeopardy if we were to reveal to the Senate and to the Australian people the source of this information. I want to assure the Senate that I have seen reports from unimpeachable sources. To reveal such sources would mean the massacre of those people for sending out such information. They are people associated with the Christian Church in East Timor. At the time of the occupation they thought that that was the course of action that ought to have been taken, but now they recount in harrowing detail the tragedy that is East Timor. The contents of the reports also show that the Government’s rapid acquiescence in Indonesian policy denies the existence of a strong and viable independence movement. How could that movement live and grow if it did not have strong roots among the people of East Timor? As I have indicated, the entire leadership is carrying on the struggle in most difficult circumstances in that country.

Several facts to which I want to refer indicate an increase in the resistance. These facts came from sources which are unimpeachable. Firstly the report indicates that 80 per cent of the people of the territory of East Timor and over 75 per cent of the population are outside the direct control of Indonesia. This is a striking revelation of the failure of the Indonesian military junta and of the military strategy. One year after the invasion and with the wet season now commencing, the Indonesians have almost no chance of extending their areas of control. The report says that the Indonesians, faced with tenuous control, are now contemplating using that most horrible of all weapons, napalm, in order to subjugate the people of that country. We all have vivid memories of the destruction wrought by this weapon in Vietnam.

Honourable senators might have misgivings about this report, but it says that 20 000, out of the total 30 000 people living in and around Dili, have asked for permission to leave for Portugal. Surely those facts could be checked with the Portuguese Government if this Government was sincere in its concern for the people of East Timor. If these reports are true, they are a terrible indictment of the brutality of the Indonesian troops in East Timor. Two-thirds of the people living in the capital of East Timor want to leave the country one year after the invasion. This is something we cannot ignore if we are to retain some humanity and self-respect.

The closure of the Telecom link would have to be one of the most scurrilous foreign affairs decisions taken by any Australian government, because that is the source of information available to us and to me. I am prepared to make that information available provided honourable senators on the Government side respect the confidentiality of the report and thus protect the people involved. The report shows a parallel between the information coming out of Timor and the report coming from these unimpeachable sources. Thirdly, the report says that the real estimates of the death toll during the year of Indonesian occupation may have reached 100 000 people. Government senators may sit opposite with a smile or a smirk on their face or be cynical about this- some of them- but that is a report -

Senator Archer:

– Which ones? Will you name them?

Senator GIETZELT:

– Do you know anything about warfare? Do you know anything about intelligence organisations? Do you know anything about invasion? I am not asking you to accept the authenticity of my report. I am saying that that is what the report says. You make your own checks. You seek out your own sources of information. If my information is correct- and I believe it is- and 100 000 people have been killed, then it is the worst genocide in history because there are only 650 000 people living in

East Timor. Never in the history of mankind have so many people lost their lives, if the report is accurate. It is for the honourable senator to check it out. The report that has been given to me is worthy of examination. It is worthy of checking. It is worthy of acceptance by the Government to determine whether it is true or otherwise. I believe in the veracity of the report. I do not spend my time in this chamber making statements that have not some credibility.

Senator Knight:

– We are not accusing you of that. Will you let us see the documents?

Senator GIETZELT:

-That may be considered to be an extraordinarily high number of people. As I reported to the Senate on a previous occasion, 80 per cent of the Chinese males in Dili were murdered on the day of the Indonesian invasion. You have had your opportunity, Senator, to check whether that was true or false. You are a supporter of the Government. You have access to information. That was the figure I gave and it has now been confirmed by another source. We do know that in the actions following the coup in Indonesia 10 years or so ago there was a massacre of a great number of Chinese people- unjustified, in my view. A similar massacre took place when the forces marched into Dili. The Chinese people were massacred as they were in Indonesia a decade or so ago. The incredible thing, of course, is that those Chinese citizens in Dili were supporters of the Taiwanese regime. They were not supporters of the People’s Republic of China. When we were there we spoke to the Chinese community- the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. We spoke to the Indonesian Ambassador. We spoke to the Catholic Bishop of Dili. They all confirmed that the Chinese people in Dili were in no way identified with the People’s Republic of China but were in fact supporters of Taiwan and all their children were sent to Taiwan for their secondary school education. Those matters can be checked out to ascertain whether they are the truth or not.

Senator Carrick and those other Australians who have served in Timor would remember a Mr John Martires who, under the Portuguese administration, was the person charged with the customs operations in that country. According to a report in today’s Melbourne Sun his granddaughter has been raped and put to death by the Indonesian troops. These are reports that are coming out of that country. I cannot say that these things happened or that they did not happen but I think they are worthy of some investigation by the Government. If there is any part of truth in what I am saying then it must be regarded as one of the worst tragedies of this century.

Fourthly, the report states that whatever support may have existed for integration has been eroded due to the excesses of the Indonesian troops. In fact, it is now said- again by unimpeachable sources- that if there were a referendum Fretilin would win by a massive majority. I have referred to the brutalisation of the population, including the death of that young lass. Such brutality, of course, leads to reaction and has led to widespread resistance within the country. Surely the fact that resistance is continuing in Timor is some indication that the Indonesian Government is not having all its own way. The Indonesian troops have lost the hearts and minds of the East Timorese people. Sooner or later the truth will out. Sooner or later the public record will show whether what I am saying is true or false. Sooner or later we will establish the actions of the previous government and of this Government. I am content to leave it to history to decide.

I think it is up to us as human beings, as citizens, to try to see whether there is any truth in these reports. If there is, we should be acting. As members of the Opposition we cannot act, but honourable senators opposite as supporters of the Government can act. They have the power within their Party and within the Government to take action and to check on whether what I am saying is true. They can see that the decisions of the United Nations are carried out or that otherwise penalties are imposed upon the Indonesian Government. Honourable members might say that we did not do enough about the situation. But at least we went there to see the position. When I was asked by a member of the State Council of the Liberal Party in New South Wales to go to Timor on my second trip I said: ‘It is no good convincing me. I want a Liberal Party member to come with mc so that the other point of view can see with its own eyes the sort of thing I saw when I went there earlier this year.’ Honourable senators know that Senator Bonner accompanied us and made his own observations. He spoke to the same people who are now sending out these reports to us. It is up to Senator Bonner to follow through from the sources with which he established connections. He should communicate with those sources to establish the veracity or otherwise of the reports to which I am referring.

Fifthly, the report refers to the humanitarian assistance destined for East Timor usage being used by Indonesian troops. We have been sending aid to the people of Timor through the Indonesian Red Cross. Is that not the concern of this Parliament? Is that not the concern of the Government? Are we just to be rubber stamps in this place with no rights and no means to express ourselves or to demand some checks on what aid is being given to Timor? I remind honourable senators that taxpayers’ money is involved. They wax eloquent in this place from time to time about taxpayers’ money being protected. It is taxpayers money which is being sent in the form of aid to Indonesia for the people of East Timor. It is to be distributed by the Indonesian Red Cross. The report says that that aid is not being distributed to the people of Timor. So there is another responsibility on the part of the Government parties to check on those facts. After all, we made a direct grant of $83,000 to the Indonesian Red Cross because the Indonesian Government would not allow the International Red Cross into Timor. So, Australian journalists went to Timor to report and they were murdered. We then asked for representatives of the United Nations to go there and they were denied facilities. We then asked the International Red Cross to go there and report and that request was denied. The Australian Government meekly accepts that position and makes money available to the Indonesian Red Cross to distribute goods to the people of Timor.

Finally, the report states that Fretilin forces are treating the people well and, importantly, are respecting their religious beliefs. In this connection the report states that the majority of the people in Indonesia controlled areas who were previously not members of any religious denomination have now adopted Christianity. This is due to the Indonesian edict requiring all persons to state a religion. I think it is obvious to honourable senators that the source of the report is the Christian church. This report tells of terror, brutality and fear in those parts of Timor which the Indonesian troops occupy. The report is an indictment of the Indonesian activities in East Timor. They amount to brutality and destruction of the whole infrastructure and of the people of East Timor. I do not think Government senators can meekly sit back and accept the latest decision of this Government to prevent Telecom receiving and conveying messages from East Timor because it aids and abets what is taking place in that country and all Australians worth their salt would vehemently condemn this decision.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I rise to make the observation that I believe the Australian Labor Party does a disservice to the cause of East Timorese to allow the Left to make all the running. I say that very deliberately. I remind the Senate that on 18 May 1976 in an address on the adjournment I pointed out that there was a similarity between the action of the Indonesians in 1 962 in the West Irian grab and the actions of the Indonesians in 1975 in the East Timor grab. I also pointed out that insofar as East Timor is concerned the Left is concerned only with the opportunity which this issue presents of enlarging the coalition of the Left in Australian society. I mentioned at the time that in 1962 I supported the right of self determination of the people of West New Guinea. Indeed, as early as 1974 in the Labour Council in Tasmania I was one of those who supported the right of the East Timorese to self determination. But I make this point insofar as the previous speaker is concerned and the people that he represents: He can bandy words such as ‘expediency’, ‘principles’ and ‘double standards’ but who has the double standards? Where was he when there was a massive take-over by the Indonesian forces in 1962? Senator Arthur Gietzelt was the President of the Sutherland Shire Peace and Disarmament Committee which was supporting the views of the New South Wales Peace Committee and its publication which was very definitely supporting the take-over by the Indonesians of West Irian and East Timor.

Senator Gietzelt:

– That is a lie.

Senator HARRADINE:

– That is not a lie; that is fact.

Senator Gietzelt:

– That is a lie.

Senator HARRADINE:

– It is quite deliberate fact. Mr President, as I said on the previous occasion, I feel that there is a need for the Australian Government to take action to ensure that the suffering people of East Timor get some aid. I proposed at that time that every effort be made to persuade the Indonesian Government to allow International Red Cross teams to go into East Timor. Since that time, as I understand the situation, International Red Cross teams have not been permitted to go into East Timor. The Government should again make quite firm representations to the Indonesian Government to enable the International Red Cross to enter East Timor. Failing that, it is incumbent upon the Indonesian Government to ensure that their Red Cross teams spend the money they get in the interests of the East Timorese. That can be checked by the Indonesian Government allowing Australian officials to go into East Timor with the Indonesian Red Cross teams. I might be whistling in the wind in this respect, but I believe that it is incumbent upon the Government at least to remind the Indonesians that contributions have been made to relieve the suffering in

East Timor and that the people who have made those contributions want to know to what purpose they have been made.

I again suggest that those people within Australia who have taken a consistent attitude in respect of the take-over of West Irian and the take-over of East Timor be given the opportunity by the Indonesians to be heard. Frankly, I believe that the Indonesians, hearing people like Senator Gietzelt take the running, believe that there is not a genuine feeling for the East Timorese among the Australian people. They hear people like Senator Gietzelt with double standards in respect of 1962 and 1975 and jump to conclusions and tar everybody with the one brush. I believe that the Government has a responsibility on behalf of the Australian people, even on my behalf, again to approach the Indonesians in an attempt to have them allow the International Red Cross into East Timor.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– I feel obliged to enter this discussion in view of what Senator Harradine has just said. As I understand his argument, it was that certain people supported the incorporation of West Irian into Indonesia in 1962 and opposed the incorporation of former Portugese Timor into Indonesia in 1976; that this displays some inconsistency, and that the Indonesians will be disturbed if they find double standards on the part of people who supported them in 1962 and who now oppose them in 1976. The only comment I would like to make on that is that I should have thought the Indonesians would be more prepared to listen to people who supported them in the past and who oppose them now than to people who opposed them all the time. But I do not want to labour that point.

I do wish to say something as one of those who did support the incorporation of West Irian into Indonesia in 1962 and supported it vocally for a long time before that date in many parts of Australia. Perhaps I should not say that it was in many parts of Australia. It was only in Western Australia. I did not have a gold pass at that time. Last year I opposed the alleged incorporation of former Portuguese Timor into the Republic of Indonesia. I must confess that I do not know what position Senator Gietzelt took in 1962, but I do remember a heated argument I had in 1961 with his brother, Mr Ray Gietzelt, the General Secretary of the Miscellaneous Workers Union. I was supporting the Indonesian incorporation of West Irian and he was opposing it. I do not know whether the brothers always do the same thing, but certainly on that occasion Senator Gietzelt ‘s brother differed very strongly from me. Possibly

Mr Ray Gietzelt is one of the people whom Senator Harradine had in mind as a bona fide authority on the question.

What I would say about the very distinct difference between the incorporation of West Irian and the incorporation of Portuguese Timor into Indonesia relates to the whole history of this situation. I think it ought to be remembered that at the time of the treaty in 1947 or 1948 between the representatives of the then Indonesian Independence Movement and the Government of The Netherlands, as a result of the efforts of the United Nations Good Officers Commission, of which the Australian representative was the Chairman, it was agreed- the Indonesians at that time claimed that this should be so- that the republic of Indonesia, in its territory, should be co-extensive with what until then had been The Netherlands East Indies. West Irian, western New Guinea, was part of the former Netherlands East Indies. This was the claim which the Indonesians made, and this was the claim which the Dutch accepted at the time of that treaty which they went back on. The Dutch subsequently refused to hand over West Irian to the Government of the republic of Indonesia, despite the treaty which had been entered into between the Dutch and the Indonesians.

The overwhelming majority of members of the United Nations at that time- I know people are critical of the United Nations, but it was a much different United Nations then from what it is now- supported the Indonesian claim to West Irian. Not only that, when West Irian was ultimately incorporated into Indonesia, the man who was primarily responsible for the ultimate efforts and the ultimate negotiations which led to West Irian’s incorporation was none other than Mr Ellsworth Bunker, a prominent official of the United States State Department who had been until very shortly before that time the United States Ambassador to Indonesia. Not only were there very solid juridical arguments as to why West Irian should be incorporated into Indonesia in the same way as the Moluccas and various outlying parts, including Indonesian Timor, the former Netherlands Timor, should be incorporated into Indonesia, there was also the fact that within West Irian, insofar as one could determine what indigenous movements took place, the people were in favour of the incorporation of West Irian into Indonesia. When I was in Jakarta in 1960 I met a number of West Irianese who were living as exiles in Jakarta and who supported that incorporation. Certainly the man who was then the information officer at the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra was a West

Irianese working in the service of the Indonesian Government.

I appreciate that if this matter were to come up again now, with the benefit of hindsight and with the subsequent developments in Indonesia, I would be prepared to concede that my enthusiasm for the Indonesian claim to West Irian may not be as strong as the enthusiasm which I showed at that time. The suggestion that there is any connection between this and the incorporation of Portuguese Timor into Indonesia has no substance. There is no indigenous movement in Portuguese Timor calling for the incorporation of that country into Indonesia, apart from the very small organisation known as Apodeti which, I think, quite clearly is accepted by everybody as having been sponsored by the Indonesian Government. I concede that the same thing may be said about the indigenous movement in West Irian. What was in Portuguese Timor and not in West Irian was a substantial indigenous movement which was in favour of the independence of Portuguese Timor. Nobody could point to such a movement in West Irian. Clearly one could point to it, and can still point to it in East Timor.

If Senator Harradine ‘s case is to be carried through to its logical conclusion, obviously he should be in the vanguard of this campaign in opposition to what the Indonesians have done. I think he has engaged in an exercise of logic chopping in suggesting that the Indonesians will listen only to people who always oppose them and not to those who sometimes oppose them and sometimes support them, depending on the merits of the case. But so far we have not heard from Senator Harradine to any great effect on this question or from very many members of the Liberal Party. What has happened near to the border of Australia, near to the coast of Australia, is the forceable takeover of a small community by a brutal and repressive government. We now see that the actions of this Government are to deprive the indigenous people of East Timor of their only means of communication with the outside world, something which only Australia can provide to them. Whatever anybody else may have done in the past, that is the action of the present Government. That is what the Opposition is protesting about. If it is alleged that the Left is making all the running on this occasion, let me point out that this is part of an old pattern. It was the Left which made all the running in the Spanish civil war, it was the Left which first spoke out about nazism and fascism, and, as a leftist, I am proud to say that it is the Left which has been the first to speak out and the strongest to speak out against Indonesian brutality in East Timor.

Senator WITHERS:
Western Australia · LP

– I do not think I should get into an argument about Left and Right. I merely say that it was the Left in Russia joining with the nazis that caused the last World War, which led to the slaughter of 30 million people. Let us not say too much about who speaks up first.

Senator Gietzelt:

– I think it was 60 million.

Senator WITHERS:

-The honourable senator says the figure was 60 million. These deaths were all brought about by the Ribbentrop pact, if I recall my history of 1939. But let us not indulge in too much history. I regard the comments of Senator Wheeldon and Senator Harradine as a dispute between 2 honourable senators and something which does not affect me as Leader of the Government in the Senate. I think the matters raised by Senator Gietzelt fall into 2 categories. One concerns certain matters which he asked the Government to look at regarding East Timor and certain assertions he made as to what is happening there. Senator Gietzelt said that he has authentic, unimpeachable information concerning this matter. I rather gathered from the drift of his speech, which extended over some 30 minutes, that he was indicating that either the Government had information but was not prepared to act upon it or was not prepared to act because it did not have any real information. I invite the honourable senator not to reveal his information in this place. I can well understand his reluctance to make public his unimpeachable sources because lives may be endangered. But I do invite him to call upon the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) and make this unimpeachable information available so that my colleague in the other place may be properly informed as to what is happening. He will then be able to make a judgment on the matters raised by the honourable senator. I think that is a fair invitation to issue to the honourable senator.

The matters concerning the activities of Telecom fall within the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) whom I do not represent in this place. I will pass the remarks on to him. I trust that, if Senator Gietzelt has authentic and unimpeachable information that those transmissions are in fact being made from East Timor and nowhere else, he will give that information, on a confidential basis, to my colleague, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I have heard allegations- I do not know wherethat these transmissions may not necessarily emanate from East Timor. However, as I say, if the honourable senator has authentic, unimpeachable information that they do, he ought to give that information, on a confidential basis, to the Minister so that he may also be correctly and properly informed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.55 p.m.

page 2101

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Meat Exports (Question No. 924)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

Is the Minister aware of an interview with the United States Secretary of Agriculture, Mr Earl Butz, which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald dated 2 1 August 1976, in which Mr Butz reportedly claimed that Australia was placing its share of the American meat market in grave jeopardy by continuing to abuse the United States Meat Import Quota Act. If so,

has Mr Butz made his criticisms known to the Australian Government,

b) what abuses are involved, and

what action has the Minister, his Department, or the Australian Meat Board taken to remove the causes of friction between Australia and the United States of America with relation to meat imports into the latter country.

Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Acting Minister for Overseas Trade has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question: lam aware of the report in the Sydney Morning Herald.

  1. The United States Government had indicated its concern about meat imports through the United States Foreign Trade Zone m Mayaguez, Puerto Rico.
  2. No ‘abuses’ were involved. The trade was lawful under United States law and not precluded by the terms of the voluntary restraint agreement between Australia and the United States of America.
  3. The matter was primarily a United States domestic problem. However, in order to assist the United States Government to control the trade, the Australian Meat Board ceased approval of shipments to Mayaguez on August 16.

Performers’ Protection Legislation (Question No. 984)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with the proposal of the Whitlam Government to introduce a Performers’ Copyright Act incorporating the principles of the 1961 Rome Convention of the International Labour Organisation. If so, when will the legislation be proceeded with.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

My Department is presently examining proposals for performers’ protection legislation. I am informed that the views . of certain interested groups have been obtained and the views of other interested groups have been sought. I am not yet in a position to say whether there will be legislation.

Waltons Limited: Consumer Credit Transactions (Question No. 1061)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware that a large retail chain, Waltons Limited, and its associated credit companies, FNCB Waltons Limited and Waltons Credits Limited, are engaging in consumer credit transactions which appear to infringe the laws relating to money-lending in several States.
  2. Does the Government, in the exercise of powers conferred by the Financial Corporations Act, intend to move on a national level to prevent such abuses of the laws relating to consumer credit. If not, what action is being taken to ensure the speedy reform of laws relating to consumer credit along the lines of the existing laws of South Australia, which have been most successful, and which have been recommended for adoption in all States and Territories by the ‘Molomby’ Committee and the Standing Committee of Federal and State Attorneys-General.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The following information is provided in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) This is a matter for the State Ministers responsible for moneylending legislation.
  2. The Financial Corporations Act was designed for purposes of economic management. It has never been the intention that this Act should be used for other purposes such as consumer credit regulation.

The whole legislative framework for consumer credit is currently under examination by a Commonwealth/State Working Party on Uniform Credit Laws. This Working Party is working under the aegus of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The question of legislation at a national level will be considered when the task of the Working Party has been completed.

Cement Exports (Question No. 1159)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

Has Darra Mining applied for, or advised the Government that it will apply for, licences to export cement?

Senator Withers:
LP

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

Darra Mining has not applied to the Department of National Resources for an export permit and is not required to do so as cement is not a prohibited export under Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulation 9.

Department of Social Security: Staff Ceiling (Question No. 1243)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

What is the projected staff ceiling for the Department of Social Security as at 30 June 1 977.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 1246 on 9 November 1976, Senate Hansard, page 1774.

Cedar Bay Police Raid (Question No. 1313)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon nonce:

Did the Queensland State Police discuss with Federal officials, at any time prior to the police raid at Cedar Bay on 29 August 1 976, the possibility of an escapee from the Cairns watchhouse being present in the Cedar Bay area. If so, what are the details.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The following information is provided in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Yes. When Queensland Police requested support for their operation in the Cedar Bay area it was suggested that an escapee from Cairns watchhouse could be living in the area. The escapee referred to was Bernard John Wilton who had been arrested by Narcotics Bureau Officers on 25 May 1976 and charged with possession of drugs and being knowingly concerned in the importation of 250 kilos of cannabis.

Cedar Bay Police Raid (Question No. 1325)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:

With reference to the Minister’s answer to Senate Question No. 1 123, what was the name of the Queensland police officer who requested support from the Bureau of Customs for the police operations at Cedar Bay on 28-29 August 1976.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The following information is provided in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I believe that it would be inappropriate for me to provide the name of the Queensland police officer concerned.

Education: Rolling Triennium Funding (Question No. 1407)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. Is the Minister aware of criticism by the Australian Teachers’ Federation of the ‘rolling triennium’ concept for Commission funding
  2. Did the Federation state on 9 November 1976 that The term ‘rolling triennium’ to be revised each year is a form of deception which in fact has no meaning other than that education will be funded on an annual basis .
  3. Does the Minister agree that the ‘rolling triennium’ funding concept undermines the ability of the Commissions to adequately plan education needs.
  4. Will the Minister provide assurances on the maintenance of real funding value to meet the projections for 1978 and 1 979 that have been made by the Commissions.
  5. Will the Minister undertake to clarify the meaning of rolling triennium ‘.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to ( 5 ) I refer the honourable senator to my statement in the Senate on 20 May 1976 where I explained the new concept of the ‘rolling triennium ‘. I also refer the honourable senator to the statement made in the Senate on 4 November 1976 where I affirmed that each of the Commissions has been given a minimum growth figure in real terms for 1978 and 1979 on which to base recommendations and planning.

Forward planning and development in education was disrupted in 1976 when the previous Government rejected the 1976-78 triennial reports of the Commissions and introduced one year programs. In 1977 by the decisions of this Government, growth will be resumed in the programs of the Education Commissions, and the foundations restored for ongoing triennial development.

School Building Programs (Question No. 1408)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government in the State Grants (Schools) Bill provided for advance funding for non-government schools’ building programs.
  2. Is advanced funding available to State Departments for capital projects in schools on the same basis as nongovernment schools will receive. If not, can the Minister explain this bias towards non-government schools.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. and (2) As I indicated in my statement to the Senate on 4 November, the Government has decided to adopt a scheme whereby advance offers of grants for priority building projects in non-government schools may be approved. This does not constitute advance funding as such but should enable schools to obtain bridging finance elsewhere to accelerate their building programs.

The States finance their building programs from both Commonwealth grants and their own resources. In fact they draw about 70 per cent of their building funds from their own resources. They therefore have a greater assurance of the availability of funds in future years than is the case with non-government schools who are reliant on private support.

Education: Grants to Non-Government Schools (Question No. 1409)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware that the States Grants (Schools) Bill significantly departs from the principles of need and equality as the basis of education funding as espoused in the Schools Commission Report. If so, does it depart from this approach through (a) per capita grants to be provided to non-government schools regardless of the fact that many of the richer schools have facilities far in advance of most nongovernment and government schools, (b) the cutting of $0.9m in the innovations and program development allocation as recommended by the Schools Commission has been transferred to non-government schools, and (c) providing a virtual triennium funding for non-government schools and an annual funding basis for government schools.
  2. In the light of these changes by this Government which undermine the basis of need and the objective of equality, can the Minister undertake to review the current attitude of the Government towards the three points outlined.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and ( 2 ) As indicated in my statement to the Senate on 4 November the Government’s education objectives include the widening of educational opportunity and promotion of equality as well as special assistance to the educationally disadvantaged. The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Schools Commission for grants to non-government schools except that the Government has decided to allocate an additional $1.8m (December 1975 prices) to the most needy category of nongovernment schools.

The Government’s decision to maintain the special projects (or innovations) program in 1977 at the same level of operation as in 1976 reflects the general thrust of the guidelines given to the Commission for the preparation of its report.

As indicated in the answer to Question 1407, triennial programing has been restored for both Government and non-government schools.

East Timor

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 21 September 1976 (Hansard page 782) Senator Gietzelt asked me about a report in the Melbourne Herald that the Indonesian Foreign Minister had claimed that in April this year Mr Peacock had assured him that the Australian Government understood that Indonesia had to annex East Timor. The article also reportedly stated that the Prime Minister’s then impending visit to Indonesia had led the Indonesian Government to believe that the Australian Government had accepted Indonesia’s position on East Timor. The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Minister for Foreign Affairs did not assure the Indonesian Foreign Minister in April this year that the Australian Government understood that Indonesia had to annex East Timor.

The Australian Government’s position on East Timor was expressed in the communique issued at the end of the Prime Minister’s visit to Indonesia.

Australian Broadcasting and Television

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 12 October 1976 Senator Button asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question, without notice:

My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications refers to 6 advertisements which appeared in the Government Gazette of 16 September relating to positions in the research and policy area of Australian broadcasting and television. As these 6 positions duplicate positions in the Australian Broadcasting Control

Board, what is the Government’s policy in relation to the duplication of positions already existing? Do the advertisements not pre-empt the finding of the broadcasting and television inquiry in which the Postal and Telecommunications Department as the conducting body has a vested interest?

The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The advertisements which appeared in the Government Gazette of 16 September for a number of positions in the Broadcasting Division of the Postal and Telecommunications Department were not related to, and did not preempt in any way the findings of the Inquiry into the Australian Broadcasting System. The positions advertised were in respect of vacancies which had occurred in the present establishment of that Division.

FM Radio

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 12 October 1976 Senator Lajovic asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question, without notice:

Has the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications read a report in the daily Press which states that ‘commercial stations have been excluded from FM radio since a decision was made by the former Government to keep them from expanding their services into this band “? Does the Minister know whether the report is correct? If it is will he ask his colleague to reconsider this decision in order to improve the quality of radio reception in metropolitan areas?

The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

It is true that the previous Government was opposed to the licensing of FM stations on a commercial basis. This is a matter which was referred to the Inquiry into the Australian broadcasting system. The Government has accepted some of the recommendations of this Inquiry but others of them, including those relating to FM broadcasting, are still under consideration.

United States Beef Quotas

Senator Cotton:
LP

- Senator O ‘Byrne asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade the following question without notice on 12 October 1976:

In view of the serious decision of the President of the United States of America to impose further quotas on Australian beef to the extent of 8 million lb on our previously determined quota, will the Minister obtain the names of those exporters who shipped excessive and unauthorised quantities of Australian beef to Puerto Rico and Canada and so jeopardised the quotas available to orthodox exporters? Is there not some way that these people who showed shortsightedness and acted regardless of its effect on the reputation of Australians as fair traders, can be made to forgo their future quotas for engaging in such damaging practices?

The Acting Minister for Overseas Trade has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I am unaware that any Australian exporters have shipped excessive or unauthorised quantities of Australian beef to Puerto Rico or Canada.

Social Security Appeals Tribunals (Question No. 1346)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

What is the name, occupation, date and term of appointment and remuneration of each member of each Social Security Appeals Tribunal.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 November 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19761117_senate_30_s70/>.