Senate
3 December 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2487

PETITIONS

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 1 8 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 1 976, does not satisfy the Aboriginal needs for land in the Northern Territory.

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

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

Amend the Bill to ensure:

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

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

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

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

A provision that any Government decision to 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.

Marko Nazor

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 299 citizens of Australia:

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

A naturalised Australian citizen, Marko Nazor, is unlawfully imprisoned in Yugoslavia as an honest and hard working and simple man who returned to his native country to see his mother.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament do everything in its power to persuade the Government of Yugoslavia to free this honest man and return to his family in Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Soviet Presence in Hungary

Senator KNIGHT:

– I present the following petition from 15 citizens of Australia:

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

That in November 1956, following the attack on Budapest by Soviet troops, the Australian representative raised this matter in the General Assembly of the United Nations.

That the General Assembly established a Special Committee to report on all aspects of the question of Soviet intervention in Hungary.

That today, twenty years later, Soviet troops are still located in Hungary and the Soviet Union exercises undue influence over the affairs of that country.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will ask the Australian Government to instruct its representative in the United Nations to raise the subject of continuing Soviet interference in the affairs of Hungary.

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 891 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, Preschool and After-school Care, Holiday Care and Emergency Day Care for Children.

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

Petition received.

Petrol Price Equalisation Scheme

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in 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.

Dripstone High School

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

  1. That demographic figures show there is an urgent need for a new High School in Darwin.
  2. That tenders for Dripstone High School should be called immediately. We call on the Government to make provision for construction to commence on Dripstone High School this financial year.
  3. That failure to complete a fourth High School in Darwin by 1979 will create severe accommodation problems and prejudice the opportunities of Darwin’s secondary school age students receiving a fair and reasonable education.

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

Petition received.

page 2488

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2488

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN STEVEDORING COMPANY

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer to recent hearings before the Prices Justification Tribunal involving a major Australian stevedoring company. I ask: Is it a fact that the Managing Director of James Patrick and Co., the stevedoring firm involved, is also Vice-Chairman of the Australian National Line? Is Sir Reginald also Chairman of the Australian Shipbuilding Board? Is he also a director of another company which operates as a ship brokerage and chartering company? Is he also a director of a company which acts as the Australian agent for the Soviet shipping company FESCO, which openly competes with ANL at less than conference rates for the AustraliaJapan trade? In view of the possibility of a conflict of interest, does the Government believe that Sir Reginald ‘s position as Vice-Chairman of the Australian National Line should be reconsidered?

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

-As to the first 2 questions, my understanding is that the answer is yes. I am not clear on Sir Reginald Reed’s other business activities. My understanding is that his current activities are identical to those that he has carried out for many years and that the Whitlam

Government found no conflict of interest with such holdings; nor have I any evidence that such a suggestion was raised. However, I will direct the question to my colleague in another place.

page 2488

QUESTION

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister for Administrative Services. I ask: Did a committee of inquiry into public libraries in Australia present a report to the Government in April of this year? Has the Government declared the action it will take on the report and, if not, when can such an announcement be expected?

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

– A committee which was set up by the previous Government, known as the Horton Committee, did report to the Government earlier this year. A great deal of interest throughout the library area of Australia has been directed towards the contents of this report. It has been under study by an interdepartmental committee of interested departments and it is hoped that the IDC will report if not before the end of this year then certainly very early in the new year.

page 2488

QUESTION

COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS COURSE FOR ABORIGINES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Education whether he is aware that a community organisations course for Aborigines at Swinburne Institute of Technology in Victoria has been abolished allegedly for one year, in order that an assessment of the value of the course may be made. Is the Minister also aware that the course has been abolished against the advice of Aboriginal groups, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Board of Swinburne College, although I understand that there was one deviation on the Board? Will the Minister inform the Parliament whether a reassessment of the decision can be carried out with a view to maintaining continuity of the course?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware of the situation, but if the matters stated by the honourable senator are correct, and I accept that, I am surprised that they have not been brought to my attention. I will have a look at the matter as soon as possible.

page 2488

QUESTION

DEVALUATION: TARIFF PROTECTION RATE

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Will the Minister make a statement showing the effect of the 17½ per cent devaluation on the effective rate of tariff protection? Is it a fact that at certain levels of protection the effective rate is increased by between 70 per cent and 100 per cent?

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

-What will happen in due course is what ought to happen. The result of a very careful study of this whole area, which was conducted immediately after the devaluation was announced and concluded only late last night, and now being studied by the Prime Minister, will be announced by the Government, both properly and sensibly, when the matter is finally concluded. Speculation as to what ought to be done and what the comparative rates are has proceeded in many cases on a basis of almost total ignorance.

page 2489

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH POLICE

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government. Is it a fact that Commonwealth police in the persons of Sergeants Drew and Facey are harassing organisations and people involved in a wide range of activities in Melbourne, including Community Aid Abroad, Action for World Development, the Australian Union of Students, Aboriginal Dental Services and people involved in the Campaign for an Independent East Timor, allegedly seeking information as to any demonstrations planned in support of the people of East Timor? Are those police activities a forerunner to the taking of similar actions to those taken against the people and organisations opposed to Australia’s commitment in Vietnam during the 1960s and early 1970s?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I have no knowledge of the matter. After the honourable senator’s question, I must say that I am no better informed. He has not informed me as to what form the harassment is taking, when the harassment is taking place and what people are actually involved, or given any detailed information. If the honourable senator provides me with that information afterwards I will certainly have a detailed investigation made of the matter.

page 2489

QUESTION

BROADCASTING: STATION 3ZZ

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware of the circumstances concerning station 3ZZ in Melbourne; nor, I confess, am I aware of the significant paragraphs to which the honourable senator has referred. I invite him to draw my attention to them. That done, I will take up the matter with the Minister in another place.

page 2489

QUESTION

COUNCIL OF NATURE CONSERVATION MINISTERS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. By way of preface I refer to a rather stereotyped Press release that followed the meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers. It dealt more or less with generalities. I am wondering whether the Minister could come up with a few specifics for me as to whether the agenda included further discussion on the long overdue wetlands survey that I have questioned him about and whether anything was done to make the migratory birds treaty something more than a scrap of paper.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Mulvihill was good enough to indicate his interest in those specific aspects. My advice is that consideration was given at the recent meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers to the whole range of ecological surveys, including the survey of wetlands, and that the Council accepted the need to continue detailed studies of the relationships between the characteristics of the wetlands and the biota. I like that word. Funds have been appropriated to the National Parks and Wildlife Service to enable it to support wetlands studies. The question of the full implementation of the migratory birds treaty was not then discussed.

page 2489

QUESTION

PRE-SCHOOL FUNDING IN NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I preface it by drawing the Minister’s attention to the assertions which have been made that insufficient funds will be allocated to allow for the continued funding of the 75 per cent of the salaries of agreed staffs of pre-schools in New South Wales. Is the Minister able to advise the Senate whether those grave assertions are correct? What is the correct situation at present with regard to the funding of pre-schools in New South Wales?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

-My attention has been drawn to a letter circulated by a group calling itself the New South Wales Children’s Services Action Group. A statement from that group raises questions about pre-school funding and funding for day care services in New South Wales. It will be recalled that on 3 November I announced the recurrent support for pre-schools in Australia for the period from 1 January to 30 June 1977. 1 stated that this would be paid to the States on a block grant basis and indicated that for that period a total of $22.36m would be available. Of this sum, $4.9m was allocated to New South Wales. The block grant to the States was calculated on the basis of reports provided regularly to the Commonwealth Government by State Treasuries on behalf of the various State departments concerned with pre-school education. It had regard to the extent of provision of pre-school education in each State and the costs of meeting that provision, and it took into account new pre-school centres commencing operations during that period as a result of capital grants made under the Commonwealth children’s services program. I also announced that a meeting was held in Canberra on 17 November between State government officials and officials from my Department to discuss arrangements for pre-school funding. At that meeting the New South Wales officials indicated that they had some difficulties with the sum which had been allocated to New South Wales on the basis of the New South Wales Treasury report. There was a further meeting on 19 November of New South Wales and Commonwealth officials. Following that meeting, it is understood, the New South Wales Government will write to the Commonwealth setting out its case in relation to the fixed grant. To my knowledge, such a letter has not yet been received, but when it is it will be looked at in the light of the facts that are presented. If I have information later that relates to the honourable senator’s question, I will give it to him.

page 2490

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. In view of the statements recently made by both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer criticising the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and implying that this institution’s decisions are largely to blame for the nation’s current economic difficulties, is the Government considering the introduction of legislation designed to reduce the Commission to the mere status of being an arm of government economic policy?

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

– I will refer the question to the Minister whom I represent.

page 2490

QUESTION

A.N.U. STUDENT ASSOCIATION FEES

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education and it follows several questions I have asked previously in this chamber regarding a student at the Australian National University who for conscientious reasons has refused to pay the student union fees. Can the Minister give any information regarding the progress of his investigations into the matter?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My advice is that the student in question has been informed by the University that whilst the question of his responsibility to pay his student association fees has not been resolved in principle following discussions between the University and the student, without prejudice to that continuing discussion the University has agreed to release his examination results today. Therefore, as I understand it, there will be no prejudice to his re-enrolment for next year. My understanding is that the University will be in dialogue with the student as to the principle involved.

page 2490

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION STAFF CEILINGS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, although as it refers in particular to the Australian Broadcasting Commission perhaps the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications may like to reply. I direct the Minister’s attention to the questions I have asked about the various government departments which have been inhibited by current staff ceilings. I now ask: Has he seen this morning the statement by the Chairman of the ABC, Sir Henry Bland, that the ABC news service has suffered a greater staff loss than the Commission would wish, principally because the Government has required that Commonwealth agencies should by normal wastage reduce to staff ceilings the Government has set? He pointed to that area of complaint which obviously people have about the service, about which honourable senators have talked. I ask the Minister whether he recalls that on 17 November he said to me:

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 current year.

In view of the many complaints that have been made by officers of many departments, will he reconsider the general policy of the Government and at least see that in the coming year no further reductions are made?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I saw the statement by Sir Henry Bland this morning, but I did not regard it as being directly within my area of responsibility or that of the Minister whom I represent, so it probably would be better if any comment on that were directed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications or my colleague who represents him in the Senate. As Senator Bishop has again raised the question generally of staff ceilings, I can do no more than reiterate the statement I made on 1 7 November. It is a prime aspect of the Government’s policy to have the size of the Public Service lowered by fixing staff ceilings and reducing the percentage of total Public Service employment in the way it has. Whether there are to be any future reductions would be a matter for the Government to decide and no doubt when it does decide the decision will be announced as previous decisions have been announced, but that is not a matter on which I can make any comment at all.

I want to emphasise that, as has also been said over and over again, within the ceilings that have been fixed the Government is flexible in dealing with problems as they arise. In my own Department of Veterans’ Affairs we have had problems in certain areas. I have already answered questions in the Senate on that issue and we have made some changes within the staff ceiling to meet those problems. That is the way we are operating and I have no doubt that is the way other departments operate. As far as the specific questions in relation to the ABC are concerned, I would prefer not to deal with them.

page 2491

QUESTION

TASMANIAN SMALL BUSINESS BUREAU

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister for Primary Industry and Commerce. Has the Minister had an opportunity to examine the small business policy of the Tasmanian Opposition Leader, the Honourable Max Bingham? Did he note that Mr Bingham proposes to establish a Tasmanian small business bureau? Would the Minister’s Department be willing to co-operate in the establishment of this important bureau by providing any information and advice that might be sought by the ‘new’ Tasmanian Government?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-Actually I have not examined the policy but it has been said in matter that I have read that the policy had been announced. I had actually said to the Department: ‘Get hold of that and see if it is consistent with the position we have taken on small business’. We have read briefly the summary of the policy, not the full details, and it seems to be fully consistent with the position we have taken in regard to small businesses. Our position has been that we should work very closely with the State governments concerned. We are doing that and we have done that. Many of the States have set up their own small business bureaus or departments in conjunction with us. We work very closely together, both the Ministers and the officials. It seemed to us that the proposal of Mr Bingham was a move in that direction for Tasmania and as such of course it has our warmest approval.

page 2491

QUESTION

DEVALUATION: EFFECTS ON MANUFACTURED GOODS

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. In view of the Government’s announcement that it would do everything in its power to prevent the identifiable effects of devaluation upon the consumer price index flowing into wages, I ask: What measures does the Government propose to adopt other than putting submissions to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Will not any further erosion of the purchasing power of employees reduce even further the level of consumer spending and thus the demand for manufactured goods?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The Senate knows that the Government has announced that these matters are kept under constant consideration and review and any decisions the Government makes on these matters will be announced as they are made.

page 2491

QUESTION

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL: IMPORTED CARS

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is he aware of at least one report this morning that the Prices Justification Tribunal has approved of an immediate increase in the price of cars imported before last Sunday’s devaluation? Is this report correct? If it is, what action will the Government take to prevent such an unjustified windfall becoming available to importers as a result of the recent change in Government policy?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-1 have not seen the report. Might I just say this: The Government’s capacity to take action in this area is fairly limited. This is a matter which normally rests totally within the jurisdiction of the States. I know that some States do have price fixing commissioners and price fixing mechanisms. I have not as yet seen much evidence that those governments are taking over much action in this area.

Senator Devitt:

– You have been fairly busy though.

Senator WITHERS:

-Yes, I know. I wish that some of my State colleagues who have these mechanisms and who make a lot of noise about them would also get busy in their own areas.

Opposition senators- You opposed the referendum proposal.

Senator WITHERS:

-It is all very well for honourable senators opposite to say that, but it was not just my side of politics that opposed that lunatic referendum proposal of the then Whitlam Government; it was opposed also by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the trade union membership. Honourable senators may remember also that it was rejected by the Australian people. I well understand why the honourable senator is disturbed about this matter. It is a matter which my colleagues Senator Cotton and the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Howard, have under consideration. When the Government decides to announce a decision in these areas I have no doubt that those Ministers will make a statement.

Senator STEELE HALL:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I refresh the Minister’s memory by stating that my question surrounded the action of the Prices Justification Tribunal, which I understand is legitimised by legislation that is passed through this Parliament and is administered by a Minister of this Government. I therefore reiterate my question, or perhaps the emphasis involved in it: Will the Minister see what can be done by this Governmentnot by State governments- in relation to the action taken by a body administered by this Government?

Senator WITHERS:

– As I understand the Prices Justification Tribunal, it is an independent statutory authority created by this Parliament. It has the same independence of mind and spirit as does the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

Senator McLaren:

– You interfere in that body, though, when it suits you.

Senator WITHERS:

-There he goes again.

Senator McLaren:

-I am right though. You cannot deny it.

Senator WITHERS:

-I imagine that Senator Hall would rather have me than Senator McLaren answer the question. Whilst the

Government has a capacity to put submissions before those 2 statutory tribunals, it has no power of direction.

Senator Devitt:

– It has no direction.

Senator WITHERS:

-It has no power of direction. I shall certainly bring the matters to the attention of my colleague the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Howard, who has administration of the Act, but I hope that honourable senators appreciate that the Government is limited to making submissions and putting arguments before the Prices Justification Tribunal. It suffers from the same handicaps with this Tribunal as it does with the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

page 2492

QUESTION

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL: IMPORTED CARS

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services, follows on the question asked by Senator Hall. I am sure the Senate must be grateful that at least we have an undertaking that the Minister will consider this Government taking some action through the Prices Justification Tribunal and at least bring its pressure to bear to overcome the increases which have come about through its own policies. I ask the Minister: In view of his statement that it is the responsibility of the States to take some action in this respect, were the States consulted before the decision on devaluation was taken?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Mr President, that really is a silly question.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I do not think my question ought to be brushed off in that way. I ask the Minister again: Did the Government consult the States who are now allegedly held responsible for rectifying the effects of the Government’s decision on devaluation? I think that is a fair question to ask.

Senator WITHERS:

-I think it falls within the category of the former question.

page 2492

QUESTION

FUNDS FOR HOUSING

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In the light of the very high levels of liquidity of building societies, is it likely that the recently announced increase of 0.2 per cent in the interest rates for Australian savings bonds will affect the supply of funds for housing?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I think the honourable senator has made a proper assumption that because of the high liquidity there will be relatively no change. However I must pick up a point. I was fascinated to read in one of the newspapers this morning an article which carried a headline to the effect: ‘Massive problem in liquidity on the way’ but which stated that there would be no trouble because of this.

page 2493

QUESTION

WOOL PRICES

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. The wool market indicator, assisted by the Australian Wool Corporation purchasing 18 per cent of the offering, increased on Wednesday by approximately 14 per cent over the previous week. If wool costs to the overseas buyer in terms of United States dollars, yen, Deutschmarks or sterling had remained constant, would prices in Australian dollars have increased by 21.9 per cent? Does the difference between 14 per cent and 21.9 per cent represent a devaluationinduced windfall gain to the overseas buyer?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-This question is in the crystal ball area. Somebody once said to me: Life is so uncertain. I look into my crystal ball to foretell the future and all I see is my secretary upside down’.

page 2493

QUESTION

RELATIONS WITH SOUTHERN AFRICA

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

-I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question. In view of the continuing and increasing build-up of Soviet arms and personnel in southern Africa and the strategic importance of southern Africa to Australia, together with the fact that Prime Minister Ian Smith has agreed to negotiate a change in electoral policy for Rhodesia, is not the time now propitious for Australia to recommend to the United Nations that we lift our trade sanctions on Rhodesia and our arms embargo on South Africa?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I think this is a question which ought to be answered directly by the Foreign Minister. However, I imagine that we would prefer to await the outcome of the present Geneva talks.

page 2493

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry a question which, to an extent, has some relationship to the reply he gave in the debate on the States Grants (Beef Industry) Amendment Bill yesterday. Can he say when the Minister for Primary Industry proposes to announce formally the Government’s proposals to the Australian

Meat Board for the amended meat export diversification scheme? If the Minister is able to answer that question in the affirmative, what are the specific details? Do they have the support of both the producers’ organisations and the Australian Meat Exporters’ Council?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-This is a sensible question. I do not have details of this matter nor do I have from the Minister any firm indication of the future position. I think that this is an area in which we ought to seek more clarity. I did not say so yesterday because we were running short of time, but I have studied New Zealand beef marketing arrangements carefully over the years. I have come to the conclusion that New Zealand ‘s marketing system is better than ours. I should like to see our overall marketing system improved and made more precise so that producers, processors and buyers are much more certain of their position.

page 2493

QUESTION

ANIMAL QUARANTINE ARRANGEMENTS

Senator BAUME:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health: In what way might present animal quarantine arrangements be able to be liberalised when the proposed high security off-shore animal quarantine station in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands is completed?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-Immediately the construction of an off-shore quarantine station is completed it will be possible to import cattle, sheep, pigs and goats through the station from the United States of America, Canada and Europe, including areas where foot and mouth disease is present, and also Japan. Later it will be possible to arrange importations through this station from Africa, Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Should there be a demand, cattle could also be imported from South America. Importation of cattle, goats and sheep would be encouraged, particularly from Africa and India, as livestock from those areas would be valuable for their tick resistance and adaptability to the harsher areas of northern Australia.

page 2493

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT FRAUD

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, refers to Press reports this morning concerning a large scale fraud in relation to unemployment benefit in New South Wales. I ask the Minister Has the apparent success of this dole fraud been helped by the staff ceiling that the present Government has applied to the Minister’s Department, especially in that area of supervision of the payment of unemployment benefit?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The fraud to which the honourable senator refers took place in the Commonwealth Employment Service and not in the Department of Social Security. It was an officer of the Department of Social Security who alerted the Department to the possibility of fraud. As a result of investigations Commonwealth police have now detected the fraud which was the subject of the Press article.

page 2494

QUESTION

INTERPRETERS AND TRANSLATORS

Senator MESSNER:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer to a recent statement by the Minister that the Federal Government intends to set up an authority to regulate training and accreditation of interpreters and translators. Recognising that this will be a major step in breaking down discrimination against migrants and recognising the considerable interest in this particular subject in South Australia, can the Minister indicate how soon the authority will be established?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am unable to give a precise date, but it is intended that the authority be established as early as possible.

page 2494

QUESTION

EDUCATION: COST SUPPLEMENTATION

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-Did the Minister for Education recently receive a letter from the University of Queensland Academic Staff Association which states, amongst many other things, that in particular the situation concerning supplementation remains unclear and if devaluation were to occur it would add to the University’s difficulties? If so, has the Minister given consideration to the points and requests raised by the Association? Can he inform the Senate of any decisions he may have made in relation to the Association’s letter?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I do not recollect the specific letter, although I have some sense of understanding that I may have received such a letter. I have received a number of letters on related matters from various staff associations. As to the first point, my understanding is that the cost supplementation arrangements that have been announced by the Government are accepted generally by the institutions which operate them as being reasonable and eminently satisfactory. It may well be that that staff association wrote such a letter to me prior to the actual statement on cost supplementation; I do not know. It is fair to say that since the announcement on cost supplementation I doubt whether I have received a single piece of correspondence expressing any concern arising out of the formula put down.

As I understand it- but this is subject to a more technical, hard look- if unavoidable cost increases occur as a result of devaluation they will be treated within the cost escalation formula in the same way as any other unavoidable increases would be treated. At this moment, after a superficial look at the matter, I do not see that the problem is not one that could not be embraced by the cost supplementation formula.

page 2494

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY: FOURTH RESIDENT JUDGE

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Has the Minister representing the Attorney-General any further information in regard to the appointment of the fourth judge for the Northern Territory? Who is the person who is to be appointed?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-Senator Kilgariff asked me this question yesterday and I undertook to obtain the information for the purpose of the debate on the Bill amending the Northern Territory Supreme Court Act, which went through the Senate last evening. Senator Kilgariff was not then present, so I am glad he has taken the opportunity of raising the matter again this morning. The answer I have to the question is that the appointment of a fourth resident judge to the Northern Territory Supreme Court is associated with the creation of the office of Aboriginal Land Commissioner under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill. That Bill probably has passed through the House of Representatives by now and will be debated in the Senate next week. So I am afraid the matter is still conditional upon further legislation being passed by this Parliament.

page 2494

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE LONG SERVICE LEAVE

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. On 14 September of this year I asked a question of the Minister regarding the ineligibility for long service leave of certain Commonwealth Public Service employees, in particular tea ladies, some of whom have more than IS years continuous service working up to 7 hours daily. The information later supplied by the Minister did not relate specifically to this area of employment. As tea ladies are now threatened with retrenchment and hence unemployment by the introduction of automatic machines, I ask again: Will the Minister undertake a specific investigation into the leave entitlement of tea ladies and people in similar employment with a view to amending the legislation, if necessary, to give them the long service leave they have undoubtedly earned?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– There is amending legislation on long service leave conditions for the Public Service passing through the Parliament at the moment. I do not know for sure whether the tea ladies referred to by Senator Ryan would be covered by the provisions of that legislation but as I have to learn something about the legislation for the purpose of the debate in the Senate next week, I will look into it and perhaps I will be in a better position to answer the honourable senator’s question when the legislation is before the Senate.

page 2495

QUESTION

EFFECT OF DEVALUATION ON TRAVELLERS

Senator McLAREN:

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he is aware of reports that, because of the Government’s decision to devalue, a great number of Australians at present travelling abroad with limited financial resources are facing serious financial embarrassment, some to the extent that they will be unable to find the return fare to Australia. In view of these reports I ask the Minister what steps, if any, the Government has taken to prevent these people being stranded overseas through no fault of their own.

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I am not aware of the reports but I would certainly expect the situation outlined by the honourable senator to arise in some areas. Sometimes people do travel with very slender means- I am speaking from personal experience- and can find themselves stranded overseas without money because either the wife has spent too much or they have not taken enough with them in the first place. That happens all the time and at devaluation time it happens more often. So there will be people in that situation. The honourable senator ought to know, but should not tell, anybody, that every Australian diplomatic post overseas gets regular calls from people in that position and anybody who is in genuine distress has always been able to get home. If they spend their money, say, on a fur coat in Paris and do. not leave sufficient money for their return they may get a loan from Australian officials and pay it back later. People are not left stranded and totally deprived. They can go to their local post, make a case and in some way their return is organised. What usually happens is that the post says’ We will send a cable to your mother-in-law, your father, your son or your bank in Australia and get some money over. In the meantime you will not starve.’

page 2495

QUESTION

DARWIN TRADER

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and relates to comments made by the Minister for Transport during his recent visit to Darwin. The Minister then said that the future of the Darwin Trader was very delicate. Can the Minister indicate what further losses the Australian National Line can incur without necessitating the withdrawal of the Darwin Trader! Does the Minister agree with the Executive Member for Transport in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly that the Minister was living in the past to suggest that Darwin waterside workers were the main threat to the Darwin Trader, given that their last industrial action was in April 1975 when unions affiliated with the Trades and Labor Council took action?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Not surprisingly, I am not aware of the statement concerning the Darwin Trader made by my colleague the Minister for Transport when he was in Darwin, so I have no firm basis on which to respond to the question. I am not aware in technical terms of what would be considered a totally non-viable position by the Australian National Line or by the Government on the operation of such a vessel but the honourable senator must be aware that the whole of the shipping freight costs in Australia, particularly our coastal shipping freight costs, are so high that they threaten the viability of all operations. Whilst everyone would sympathise with the need for Darwin to have adequate freight services, equally we all have responsibility to look to the ingredients of costs which go to make this up. I am not aware of how much the waterside or stevedoring troubles generally may have contributed to the costs of operation. I will refer the matter to my colleague in another place and see whether there are any specific answers.

page 2495

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLE STANDARDS

Senator DAVIDSON:

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I refer to the serious warnings issued yesterday in a report relating to quality, standards and safety of new motor vehicles. Is the Minister aware that criticisms in the report also extended to salesmen and financing representatives? Will the Minister study the contents of this report, which was tabled in the Victorian Parliament, and will he arrange for urgent and strong inquiries as to the accuracy of the report and into ways and means whereby the various standards may be improved and consumers protected at the point of purchase rather than having to engage in later protracted and inconvenient negotiations?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I will draw the attention of the Minister for Business and Consumer affairs to the report mentioned by Senator Davidson and obtain his comments in due course. It may well be that some aspects of the report would be more appropriately dealt with by the Minister for Transport, and I will investigate that as well.

page 2496

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: SCHOOL LEAVERS

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

-I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security and refer to her answer to a question yesterday on school leavers, when she undertook to table a legal opinion. Is the legal opinion to which the Minister referred the one by Sir Garfield Barwick when he was Attorney-General? Does the opinion refer to students who intend to resume their studies and is it true that the Department has not had a legal opinion on school leavers as distinct from students on vacation who intend to resume studies?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The legal opinion to which I referred yesterday is the legal opinion of Sir Garfield Barwick. The question asked related to students on vacation and it was on that basis that I undertook to table the legal opinion, which has been used by the Department for several years. With regard to the second part of the question, I will seek advice from the Department as to whether it has any separate legal opinion on the matter raised.

page 2496

QUESTION

RADIOACTIVE WASTE

Senator GIETZELT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Has her attention been drawn to a statement made by a person who claims to have been involved in the burying of radioactive waste in South Australia? Is the Minister aware that the South Australian Government, when it was investigating the incident at Port Pirie a few weeks ago, found that the company concerned with the disposal of the waste had subsequently gone into voluntary liquidation and was therefore no longer culpable in regard to the maintenance or protection of that material? Leaving aside the subsequent inquiries that came about, has the Cabinet discussed the problem of health which may arise accidentally or otherwise from radioactive waste? In particular, has the Government initiated a program designed to protect the Australian people from existing radioactive material in Australia? How does the Government envisage that future generations will have knowledge of or be adequately protected from such dangerous material? Can the Minister advise what public authority or persons are or are to be responsible for the safeguarding of such material which is buried in various places in Australia?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I did hear a radio comment this morning with regard to the burying of radioactive waste. I will refer the many questions raised by Senator Gietzelt to the Minister for Health and see that the honourable senator gets the information required.

page 2496

QUESTION

MR DA SILVA: DARWIN RADIO TRANSMITTER

Senator GEORGES:

-I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It refers to a Mr da Silva a Timorese who was charged before a Darwin court for the operation of a radio transmitter. I ask: Now that the matter has been resolved and Mr da Silva is on a bond to be of good behaviour for one year, will the Minister accede to a request by Mr da Silva that he should leave Australia next Wednesday for Mozambique and not respond to a request from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that he should leave this Sunday? I ask the Minister to give favourable consideration to his request because the demand by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs means that Mr da Silva would have to overstay at Mauritius for one week, thus endangering his personal safety.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I can recognise the urgency in the matter that has been raised by the honourable senator. I will refer it to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and see that an early reply is given on this matter. I believe that I can assure him that every consideration is given to matters of such urgency and that there need be no delay that would cause any further difficulties to the person concerned.

page 2496

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: SCHOOL LEAVERS

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security and relates to school leavers and their claims for special benefit. I ask: Has the Minister issued instructions for the speedy processing of special benefit claims by school leavers seeking work who claim hardship? As the normal waiting period for the assessment of special benefit is some weeks, will she advise the young people who need a sustainable family or personal income to register now and submit their circumstances to the Director-General for a quick decision?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– We have taken steps with regard to the applications for unemployment benefit which are received from school leavers. We make the following response to them:

Dear Sir/Madam,

This will acknowledge receipt of your application for unemployment benefit.

Before your claim can be granted it will be necessary for the Department to be satisfied that the conditions of eligibility for benefit have been met.

In this connection I have to advise that, on the basis of a legal advising, the Department does not accept students on vacation as being ‘unemployed’ or as eligible for unemployment benefit. If you intend to resume full-time studies, it will not be possible for you to be paid unemployment benefit during the vacation. Should it be your intention to not take up any further form of full-time education or training, you should advise the Department to this effect when your intentions in this matter are firm. It has been found in the past that in many cases students who complete their secondary education in November or December have not made firm decisions on the question of their future full-time education until well into the new year.

In addition to providing information so that the Department can decide whether you are a student on vacation or whether you aim to become a member of the workforce, you will have to comply with a further condition of eligibility for unemployment benefit, namely that you have taken reasonable steps to obtain work. In the case of persons who have just left school it is necessary for persons who claim unemployment benefit to demonstrate that they have taken some action on their own account to seek employment, in addition to registering with the Commonwealth Employment Service.

The effect of the above conditions is thai, as a general rule, persons who leave school in November or December will not be in a position to meet the conditions of eligibility for unemployment benefit until the end of the school vacation.

Should you be experiencing hardship as a consequence of not being eligible for unemployment benefit during the school vacation, you may make application to an office of the Department of Social Security for special benefit. I have to advise that ‘hardship’ for the purposes of determining eligibility for special benefit ordinarily refers to hardship experienced by a person in receipt of income who suffers a sudden and unforseen loss of that income.

Unless special circumstances exist, it will not be accepted that there is hardship if a person who has recently left school is living at home with his parents or who was supported by his parents prior to leaving school.

Persons who left school at the end of the school year, who are not planning to undertake full-time education or training and who are still seeking employment at the end of the school vacation will be eligible for unemployment benefit from the date of the commencement of the new school year.

Yours faithfully, Director/Registrar

Together with the conditions as stated in that letter from the Director-General to any student who has applied I am able to say that there is still the provision of special benefit in cases of extreme hardship and necessitous circumstances and that those matters would be determined as expeditiously as possible by the DirectorGeneral or the persons in the States whom he delegates to undertake this responsibility on his behalf.

page 2497

QUESTION

MOVEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources. I ask the Minister whether reports in the Dunedin Evening Star and the Christchurch Star of Saturday, 9 October 1976 that the United States planned to ship 6500 cubic metres of soil contaminated by radioactivity from the McMurdo Sound nuclear power generator in the Antarctic are accurate. If so, does the incident involve a violation of Article 5 of the Antarctic treaty? If so, what are the likely ramifications of the action? Can the Minister also advise me how the contamination of this 6500 cubic metres of soil occurred?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I ask the honourable senator to put that question on notice.

page 2497

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION STAFF CEILINGS

Senator BISHOP:

-Will the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications be good enough to take account of the question that I put to Senator Durack with respect to the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s news service being restricted by staff ceilings?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I did in fact listen to the question and its content. I will draw it to the attention of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications.

page 2497

QUESTION

NITROGENOUS FERTILISERS SUBSIDY

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. During a speech last night Senator Gietzelt suggested that the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill was introduced so late in the present session of Parliament because the Government gave a low priority to rural matters. Will the Minister agree that rural matters were given great prominence earlier this year and that the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill only gives effect to maintaining the present subsidy rate until the end of the year?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-That I think is a very correct conclusion to draw from Senator Gietzelt ‘s remarks. The facts as Senator Thomas recited them are totally correct.

page 2498

QUESTION

DISEASE IN EUCALYPTS

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Science. It rests on the assumption that he has read this morning’s newspapers. Is he aware that people in Sydney are concerned about the effect of some mysterious disease on harbourside eucalypts? I am mindful that Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation forestry experts have given evidence before the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment. Can the Minister channel their services to working in tandem with the Forestry Commission of New South Wales to eradicate this disease outbreak?

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

– I will certainly refer the matter to CSIRO. It is working in conjunction with many State governments and authorities in solving various problems that are associated with dieback in eucalypt and other forests.

page 2498

QUESTION

FERAL CATS

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask a question of Senator Webster on a subject with which he is apparently conversant- the subject of the feral cat. I received a reply from him in respect of this matter. I am not so much concerned with the original question I asked, but in his letter to me he said that although officers of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s Division of Wildlife Research undertakes research into various feral species the Division has no formal research program on feral cats. Is he not aware that the 1974-75 report of his own Department stated that a survey involving 15 months field work was done on this species? Are we to understand that in the work of his Department in all research programs field work of that length does not constitute a formal research program?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I hope Senator Wriedt will not take it as offensive when I say that some of the questions he poses to me are posed for the very stupid reason of trying to take some particular point from the scientific answers that I give. This was particularly so either yesterday or the day before when he asked whether I knew about some scientific agreement with the United States of America on solar research. I do not wish to make a fool of Senator Wriedt. He was a very prominent Minister in the past Government. He attempted to say that during the term of that Government, in 1974, some agreement was made and that I was ignorant of it. Of course Senator Wriedt was mistaken in his details. There was no such agreement, but perhaps he thought there was or perhaps he was mistakenly referring to the United States-Australian agreement generally.

Senator Wriedt asks me about feral cats. The records will show that he asked me a question on this matter earlier following some other answer I had given. If one looks at the Hansard record tomorrow, one will find that his question ended with a query about why I did not answer correctly in relation to the CSIRO ‘s research into feral cats. The fact is that CSIRO does not do research into feral cats. The answer which I gave him immediately following his question earlier this week I thought would have set his mind to rest on the problem of the cat. Senator Wriedt, being a man from Tasmania, is interested in Macquarie Island. It is correct that scientists of the Australian Antarctic Division have carried out some survey into the biology and ecology of life that exists on Macquarie Island. As I understand it, the Division has established that as a result of the importation of cats to the island many years ago there are now over 400 feral cats on the island. If the honourable senator cares to look at the excellent document which I tabled yesterday he will be able to study what those cats eat and the various other matters in relation to keeping the cat population under control.

Senator Wriedt:

– I did not ask you that. You did not even listen to what I was asking.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I ask Senator Wriedt to phrase his question concisely; then I will attempt to answer it.

page 2498

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: SCHOOL LEAVERS

Senator GEORGES:

-I ask a question of the Minister for Social Security. I believe that in answer to a question asked by Senator Donald Cameron the Minister read from a letter which I think is sent to school leavers registering for employment. Will the Minister table that letter or provide a copy of it to honourable senators? The impression still is that the terms used in that letter are much harsher than the impression given by the Minister in answer to questions from this side of the Senate?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I would be happy to table the letter. Perhaps the quotation I read from the letter could be expanded to include the whole letter in that answer. I would be happy if Hansard could deal with it in that way. If the whole of the letter were inserted into Hansard in that answer it would perhaps meet the request of Senator Georges.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted for that to be done? There being no objection, leave is granted.

page 2499

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION

Senator GEORGES:

-I direct a question to the Minister for Administrative Services. By preface may I say that some concern is now being expressed that no action has been taken by the Government to introduce electoral reform legislation to provide for a redistribution. Are we not rapidly reaching the position where unless some such initiative is taken it will be impossible to hold an election in 1 977 or even in 1 978?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The honourable senator’s assumption is not correct. The problem is, as I attempted to explain before, that in a matter heard by the High Court some weeks ago a certain litigant challenged the validity of certain sections, in particular section 10 1 think it was, of the Representation Act. Until that matter is resolved it is virtually impossible to commence a redistribution because the number of seats for the House of Representatives will depend on the outcome of the High Court case. We have no control over when the High Court will deliver that decision. It takes approximately 40 to 45 weeks, or somewhere about that time- it could be a little less- for a redistribution to be completed and I would hope that the High Court’s decision would be available early in the New Year. But if the Government needs to legislate to make the legislation conform with the High Court’s decision we would be able to do that almost immediately upon the resumption of the Parliament. As soon as that matter is finalised the Government intends to proceed immediately to a redistribution for the House of Representatives, but we are in the hands of the High Court. The sooner we get the High Court’s decision the sooner we will be able to proceed with the redistribution.

page 2499

QUESTION

FLOOD MITIGATION

Senator COLSTON:

-Has the attention of the Minister for Science been drawn to an article entitled ‘The Importance of Flood Forecasting’ by the late Crawford Munro, Emeritus Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of New South

Wales, which appeared in the Sun Herald dated 14 November 1976 and in which Professor Munro vividly detailed the enormous service provided to the nation by the hydrometeorological service of the Bureau of Meteorology? If so, is the Minister concerned by Professor Munro ‘s claim that the aims of the service in relation to the mitigation of flood damage and the control and development of water resources are not being achieved as accurately as desired at present because of the inadequacy of funds for sophisticated instruments? Will the Minister take whatever action is necessary to ensure that this vital operation is not constricted by lack of funds and assistance from the Federal Government?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I did not notice the article to which the honourable senator refers. However, I do know of the excellent work which is carried out by the Bureau of Meteorology in the area of flood mitigation. That was very evident at the time of the floods which recently beset the Australian Capital Territory and Queanbeyan. The work of the Bureau is excellent and undoubtedly it is of enormous importance to many people in Australia. Not one area of science would claim that it could not do with more funds at the present time. Generally the Bureau of Meteorology is well supported by the Federal Government. It is expected to expend some $35m this financial year. The application of funds to the service that it provides has been maintained at a very high level over the past few years. In my opinion and obviously in the opinion of the former Government, the work that it has done has been excellent. The Bureau is supported well by the Federal Government in the particular area to which the honourable senator refers in his question. I shall look into the matter to see whether there is a demand for greatly increased funds. This matter generally is prompted by a Minister in another place- I think it is the Minister for National Resources- who is particularly involved in river height gauging and that type of work.

page 2499

QUESTION

USE OF PARLIAMENT HOUSE DINING ROOM

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wriedt, asked me whether I would take up with Mr Speaker the matter of an incident which occurred in the private dining room of the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms on Tuesday evening last, and I replied that I would. Mr Speaker and I agree that it is not the sort of conduct which should occur in

Parliament House. I would not expect it to happen again.

page 2500

QUESTION

TASMANIAN FREIGHT EQUALISATION SCHEME

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

-by leave- Several days ago Senator Wright and I think some other honourable senators asked me questions regarding the details of the south bound freight conditions for Tasmania. For the information of honourable senators I table a document entitled Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme Registration Procedures for South Bound Movements of Material and Equipment’.

page 2500

POSTAL SERVICES

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

-Pursuant to section 8 of the Postal Services Act 1975, 1 present the text of a ministerial direction, dated 11 November 1976, made by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to the Australian Postal Commission.

page 2500

QUESTION

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON MOUNT LYELL MINING OPERATIONS

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I present the report from the Senate Select Committee on Mount Lyell Mining Operations. I move:

As the Senate will know, Queenstown, which is on the west coast of Tasmania, is supported by the copper mine which is of some 80 years life. The mine is a continuous operation which has 27 million tons of ore reserves. According to the company’s accounts, it has an expected life of 13 years. It provides employment on which the isolated community there of some 5000 people depends. A current work force of about 1000 people is employed at the mine. The proposal to retrench 400 employees with a resultant reduction of production of copper from 23 000 tons a year to 15 000 tons, as announced by the directors of the company on 4 November, came as a sudden shock to the public. This proposal was the directors’ response to problems of rising costs of production, static or reducing copper prices, and prices to the company aggravated adversely by a declining exchange rate. The operating mine loss for the year 1975 was $8.5m and for the year 1 976, $5.2m.

Upon the industry information available, in November the company forecast that it would have a cash deficiency at the end of June 1979 of $21m. The Board judged that by the retrenchment plan it could reduce the deficit to $2. 6m. It therefore felt compelled to make the decision to adopt the plan to contract mine operations and reduce the number of employees by four hundred. Retrenchment notices have been issued to 340 of those people to take effect in 3 stages up to 12 January next when the Prince Lyell plan, as it is called, is scheduled to operate. The consequent dislocation and hardship on the community of Queenstown, associated companies and workmen’s families was very severe.

The Committee appointed by the Senate to inquire into the circumstances of the decision appreciated the urgency of action. If the decision were to be reversed or modified, action was necessary before 9 December. We have heard evidence in Queenstown, Melbourne and Canberra for most days of the last fortnight. When we were on the threshold of final consideration of our report of assistance, the Government announced its decision to devalue the dollar. The result was to convert the estimated cash deficiency for 1979 of $2 lm into a deficiency of not more than $2. 7m. This is almost the figure of deficiency which at that date the directors considered they would achieve by the contraction and retrenchment plan. In fact, there is only $100,000, or, to be precise, $117,000 difference between the result of devaluation and the deficit that the directors hoped to achieve by this plan before devaluation. The Committee therefore reports that devaluation, of itself, should be considered to have solved the company’s immediate problem and to have enabled the company to reassess the position and maintain full employment.

The Committee goes on to point out that the Industries Assistance Commission report of November 1976 recommended government guarantees for copper producing companies with cash stringency. In June 1976 the Government decided to offer these guarantees. If loan capital should be required for capital development, this facility should enable the necessary borrowing, especially on the part of this company, which has an uncalled capital of $9.7m. It is sincerely hoped that the company can see its way clear to carry on existing operations and maintain the workforce on this basis.

The Committee has also recomended that the Government consider references of the question of a copper bounty related to costs and prices and assistance to the industry on the basis of gold mining legislation in Australia and South Africa as a basis of floor stabilisation for long term support to the industry.

I would be remiss if I did not express the Committee’s real thanks to all those who so willingly co-operated at short notice to give evidence. I refer especially to the Warden of Queenstown, Mr Dilger, who made the municipal chambers available to us with every courtesy, and also to Mr Lowe, the Deputy Premier of Tasmania; Mr Ray Groom, the Federal member for Braddon; Mr Ray Bonney, one of the State members for Braddon; Mr Broadby, a member of the Legislative Council; and the directors of the Mount Lyell company. The directors and their colleagues co-operated with us under great pressure, necessarily imposed by the time constraint. I also wish to mention the trade union representatives, all of whom gave evidence before us in a constructive fashion. I place myself under a special obligation to members of the Committee for their co-operation. I wish to thank the staff for their assistance.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2501

CHILDREN’S SERVICES PROGRAM

Ministerial Statement

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria · LP

– by leave- I wish to inform the Senate of details of the Children’s Services Program which will provide care for school children during the coming Christmas school vacation. I have a list of the programs which have been approved for the States for the DecemberJanuary period. I seek leave to have this document incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The document read as follows-

page 2516

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I present the 57th report of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, being a general report upon the deliberations of the Committee during 1976. In doing so, I should like to comment on the change in personnel of the Committee during that period. As a personal tribute I very much regret that the year saw the loss of the work of members of the Committee such as Senator Devitt, who for a number of years acted as Deputy Chairman and for several years as Chairman of this Committee, and Senator Brown. Both members performed first class work for this Committee and it was with regret that I saw them move from the work of this important Committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2516

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Australian Heritage Commission Amendment Bill 1976.

Queensland Grant (Proserpine Flood Mitigation) Bill 1976.

New South Wales Grant (Namoi River Weirs) Bill 1 976.

Air Force Amendment Bill 1976.

Qantas Airways Limited ( Loan Guarantee) Bill 1 976.

Airline Equipment ( Loan Guarantee) Bill 1 976.

page 2516

ACTS INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

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

page 2516

APPLE AND PEAR LEGISLATION

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Cotton) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Apple and Pear Levy Bill 1976, the Apple and Pear Levy Collection Bill 1976, the Apple and Pear Export Charge Bill 1976, the Apple and Pear Export Charge Collection Bill 1976 and the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill 1 976 being put is one motion at each stage, and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

page 2516

APPLE AND PEAR LEVY BILL 1976

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay.

Bills (on motion by Senator Cotton) read a first time.

Second Readings

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

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speeches read as follows-

Apple and Pear Levy Bill 1976

The purposes of this Bill, the Apple and Pear Levy Collection Bill 1976, the Apple and Pear Export Charge Bill 1976 and the Apple and Pear Export Charge Collection Bill 1976, are to provide for the imposition and collection of levies on the production and sale in Australia of apples and pears and a charge on apples and pears exported from Australia. These legislative proposals give effect to the recommendations of the Australian Apple and Pear Growers ‘ Association for a new basis of financing the activities of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation.

The Corporation- prior to September 1974 the Australian Apple and Pear Board- has derived its funds from a charge on apple and pear exports. With the steep decline that has occurred in the export trade, particularly in apples, the Corporation is lacking the necessary financial resources to carry out adequately its functions, particularly those related to development and promotion in the Australian domestic market. Given that the great bulk of production is sold in the domestic market, the Apple and Pear Growers’ Association has proposed, and the Government has accepted, that in the interest of equity all growers should contribute financially to assist the activities of the Corporation. Honourable senators may recall that proposals were before the Parliament, at the time of the double dissolution last year, for the Corporation to be financed from the proceeds of a levy on bearing areas of apple and pear trees. The apple and pear growing industry, having reconsidered this proposal, has confirmed its original view that it would prefer the levy to be based on the quantity of fruit marketed, both in Australia and overseas.

This Bill and the Apple and Pear Levy Collection Bill 1976, respectively, provide for the imposition and collection of levies on fruit marketed in Australia. As provided for in these measures, the rates of levy will not exceed 6c per box for apples and pears sold for consumption in fresh form, 60c per tonne for juicing fruit and $1.40 per tonne for processing fruit- other than pears for the production of canned fruit. Since growers delivering pears for the manufacture of canned fruit are required to pay levies under the terms of the Canning-Fruit Charge Act 1959 for the purposes of the Australian Canned Fruit Sales Promotion Committee, they will be exempt from payment of the levies to be imposed, under the terms of the current proposals, in respect of canning pears. The Canned Fruit Sales Promotion Committee is responsible for the conduct of promotional arrangements within Australia on, inter alia, canned pears.

The Apple and Pear Export Charge Bill 1976 and the Apple and Pear Export Charge Collection Bill 1976 respectively provide for the imposition and collection of a charge on exports of apples and pears. The rate of this charge will also not exceed 6c per box. Provision is made for the operative rates of levies, in respect of all leviable classes of fruit, to be prescribed by regulations made after recommendations of the Australian Apple and Pear Growers’ Association have been considered. In this connection I mention that the Government has accepted the Association’s recommendation that the rates of levies to apply from the commencing date of the legislation, that is 1 January 1977, should be 5c per box for fresh apples and pears, whether marketed in Australia or exported, 50c per tonne for juicing fruit and $1 per tonne for processing fruit.

In general, the liability for the levies rests with the producers of the fruit. However, in order to reduce the number of collection points, and thus the costs of administering the scheme, the responsibility for remission of the levies to the Commonwealth will, for the most part, be placed with selling agents, processors, quantity purchasers and exporters who, however, are being given the authority in law to recover the payment from their supplying growers. To further economise on the costs of administration, certain exemptions will apply. These will be in respect of fruit sold direct by growers at the orchard or at roadside stall, or used by the grower himself for juicing or processing purposes, if the relevant quantities do not exceed 500 boxes per annum, or such other level as may be prescribed by regulations.

Generally, the levy is payable 28 days after the end of the month in which the fruit is sold, processed or exported. An exception to this rule will be in the case of a grower who sells small quantities of fruit to minor fruit retailers or direct to consumers by retail at the orchard or roadside stall. In these circumstances the levy is payable by 28 February after the end of the year in which the sale was made. The application of the rates of levies proposed by the industry from 1 January 1977 is expected to provide the Corporation with an annual income of around $850,000. This compares with the Corporation’s income of about $250,000 per annum from the proceeds of the existing charge on exports of apples and pears.

These Bills are designed to ensure a firm financial base for the Apple and Pear Corporation, which has a vital role to play in assisting the industry in the face of problems which have developed in recent years, resulting in a severe cut-back in the volume of apples moving to export markets. The additional funds to be placed at the disposal of the Corporation from the new levy arrangements will enable it to make a more positive contribution towards market development, particularly on the domestic scene. I might add that the industry has unfortunately been in quite a parlous plight. The industry itself feels that part of the solution to developing future market arrangements lies in strengthening the role of the Corporation, and I am quite sure that this legislation will facilitate that objective. I am confident that there is a place in Australian horticulture for a viable apple and pear industry, and I believe that the Corporation will become more significant as a focal point for the industry’s reorganisation and adjustment. It is imperative, however, that its financial support be assured if it is to fulfil its objectives. I further add in that regard that each of the producer organisations has informed the Minister that it strongly supports this legislation and the levy that is part of it. I commend the Bill.

Apple and Pear Levy Collection Bill 1976

As honourable senators will be aware, I have covered the purpose and the main substance of this Bill in my second reading speech on the first of the bracket of Bills dealing with proposals for a new basis of levying apple and pear growers to provide the funds of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation. I commend the Bill.

Apple and Pear Export Charge Bill 1976

As honourable senators will be aware, I have covered the purpose and the main substance of this Bill in my second reading speech on the Apple and Pear Levy Bill 1976. 1 commend the Bill.

Apple and Pear Export Charge Collection Bill 1976

In the same manner as the Apple and Pear Export Charge Bill 1 976, 1 have covered the substance and the purport of this legislation in my second reading speech on the Apple and Pear Levy Bill 1976. 1 commend the Bill.

Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill 1976

The purposes of this Bill are twofold. Firstly, it authorises appropriation to the accounts of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation of moneys equivalent to those received by the Commonwealth from the proceeds of the levies to be collected under the provisions of the Apple and Pear Levy Collection Bill 1976 and the Apple and Pear Export Charge Collection Bill 1976. Secondly, the Bill provides for the annual report and financial statements of the Corporation to be presented to the Minister, for tabling in Parliament, on a calendar year, in lieu of a financial year, basis. This change is desirable, having regard to the fact that funds to be derived from the levy scheme outlined in my second reading speech on the Apple and Pear Levy Bill 1976 will flow to the Corporation from the seasonal marketing pattern for apples and pears on a calendar year basis. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned.

page 2518

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

This Bill seeks to amend the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act 1967 by extending the life of that Act to 1 July 1977. In introducing this Bill I take this opportunity, Mr

President, to make to the Senate a further detailed statement on the Government’s attitude to future arrangements for the stevedoring industry and to tell honourable senators of the future course that the Government wishes to see taken in this connection. Honourable senators will recall that in the Minister’s second reading speech on a Bill to amend this Act on 6 May this year he made a similarly detailed statement. That statement indicated the Government’s approach. It might well have been styled Stage 1 of a total operation. The statement I am now making reports on progress and introduces what I might term Stage 2.

On 6 May the Minister discussed at length the reasons which prompted the Government to adopt the approach that he then outlined and so I do not propose to reiterate that thinking now. However, his statement outlined three areas of special concern to the Government: Measures aimed at securing cost restraint; measures to protect the interests of the staff of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority; and measures to overcome the problems of the industry as had been identified in the report presented to me by Mr Justice Northrop. Moreover, the Minister said in May, and I repeat it now, that provided the industry can develop a suitable framework within which solutions to major problems can be found, the Government will relinquish its regulatory role through the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority provided that there are suitable arrangements to cope with the following particular problems: Continued efforts to reduce the work force; satisfactory arrangements for recruitment and redundancy of waterside workers to cope with the fluctuating requirements of the labour force, including the question of a supplementary labour scheme; adequate distribution of and transferability of labour; improved industrial relations and dispute settlement procedures; effective participation in the industry of ‘user’ interests and other bodies; and satisfactory funding arrangements.

I shall now deal with the developments that have taken place since the Minister’s statement of 6 May. He placed particular emphasis on protecting the well-being of the staff of the ASIA. I can now tell the Senate that a total redundancy arrangement has been settled with the unions concerned. The Minister indicated in May that costs associated with this industry were of special concern to the Government. He placed emphasis on the importance of the role of the Prices Justification Tribunal and the Trade Practices Commission in providing scrutiny as to these matters. As honourable senators will be aware, the PJT is currently conducting a public examination of prices charged in the industry. The PJT is currently examining these matters as to Patrick Operations Pty Limited and Seatainers Limited. The Trade Practices Commission is examining matters associated with wharf handling and stacking charges.

These inquiries are not yet completed and so I do not want to speculate about their outcome at this stage. However, I am pleased that they are being undertaken, and in light of the impact costs in this industry have on all sections of the community it is proper that such costs should come under surveillance to ensure that prices set are fair both to the supplier and the consumer. This surveillance is now taking place in this industry for the first time. The Government views the current examinations of the industry as positive means of protecting community interests. I would add that the Government is watching the current proceedings with very great interest and what emerges will be taken into account in the Government’s final considerations.

Since May, the Minister has had extensive discussions with employer and union interests. He has also talked with various special interests, including the Australian Shippers Council, the bulk handling operators, the Association of Australian Port and Marine Authorities, the Australian National Line and the Broken Hill Pty Company Limited. All parties to the industry and the Government are agreed that the present level of the work force in the industry is in excess of that needed for effective operational purposes. Since May the Minister has given this matter special attention. The precise extent of the surplus is not agreed upon by all parties, but he is of the view that it is in the vicinity of at least 1200 men. However, he does not wish to be tied down to this number or any other number at this time. As I will indicate a little later on, our present concern is to ensure that positive action is taken to reduce the surplus significantly and as quickly as possible. When the process to achieve this gets under way, we will be closer to determining the final figure than we are now. The fact remains, however, that the cost impact of the surplus labour as reflected in the Authority’s expenditure on idle time is currently running at some $400,000 per week or $20m per annum.

Existing redundancy arrangements have failed to attract sufficient volunteers to leave the industry and under no circumstances can the Government condone a situation which results in such high and unwarranted expenditure. Nevertheless, I can tell honourable senators that, as a result of efforts the Minister encouraged, the labour force in the industry has already been reduced by some 300 men this year. So the Minister wants the parties to confer, immediately, to secure a further significant reduction in the work force quickly. He is proposing to the parties that they consider arrangements which would enable immediate separation of those surplus waterside workers in the 60 to 65 age group. This could reduce the labour force by about 500 men. I shall be suggesting to them that they then turn their attention to surplus numbers in the lower age groups. I am pleased to be able to tell honourable senators that the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has agreed to make available a member of the Commission to chair the discussions between the parties. The costs involved in reducing the labour force will be borne by the industry. The precise manner in which they will be borne will depend on the overall arrangements decided upon for the industry.

We have now reached the point at which Stage 2 in developing new arrangements for the industry, in detail, can get under way. The Minister will propose to the parties that they enter into discussions and come up with a plan developed down to fine detail. This plan would need to cover such matters as the progressive transfer of responsibilities from the statutory body and present for the Government’s consideration how the industry will manage its own affairs. Senior officers of the Department will participate in that conference and they will have broad views to put to it on the Minister’s behalf as to such matters as: Provision of genuinely effective means of adding labour to and removing it from the workforce; creation of circumstances to allow allocation and transfer of labour between stevedores; development of special arrangements such as supplementary labour units to meet the fluctuating requirements of the ports; improved industrial relations procedures- perhaps more importantly the continuing use of the procedures that presently exist but which appear to be used too infrequently; methods whereby the interests of smaller ports are protected- where the industry as a whole does not subjugate the needs of these ports to those of the major pons; and consultative arrangements to allow all relevant interests to have an effective voice in the industry’s affairs.

One particular matter to which the Minister will be giving attention will be the special position of those companies involved in bulk handling operations and as to which there are particular provisions in the stevedoring legislation. The concept of those provisions will need to be preserved and the Minister will be considering how best that might be achieved when the Government comes to consider the detailed arrangements which he expects the parties to the industry to develop. Assuming our expectations are realised, the Government will want to give opportunities for interested parties to have a voice in the industry and so it envisages the setting up of structures which will allow for consultation at a national level between the industry and a wide range of other parties, including Governments.

A national management body for the industry and a management body at the port level is envisaged. I emphasise, Mr President, that the precise nature and functions of these bodies need to be left flexible at this time so that final details can be worked out with the parties in the national discussions to which I have just referred. This is consistent with our aim of working with the industry and placing responsibility on it towards development of the totality of new arrangements. It is intended that the national discussions take place under an independent chairman. The Minister is currently engaged in arranging this in consultation with the parties.

I now turn to the question of future funding arrangements in the industry. Honourable senators will be aware that the present arrangements rest upon a levy imposed under the provisions of the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act. If the industry is to manage its own affairs such an arrangement will no longer be necessary. However, it can be expected that the industry will need to introduce funding arrangements of its own. The Minister’s present thinking is that these may require some statutory backing. He will be taking this up with the industry in the very near future. Needless to say, the Government will need to be satisfied with the nature of the final arrangements entered into in this area. The Department will be engaging a consultant to work with it on this particular matter. There will be opportunities for interested parties to talk with him.

As I indicated at the beginning of this speech, we are entering Stage 2 of a very long ana complicated exercise. I am pleased to say, however, that we are making progress. This is in no small measure due to the fact that this Government has taken a positive approach to the future relationships in this industry. The discussions and developmental work that will need to be done now could not be finalised before the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act expires on 31 December 1976. Thus, the Bill now before the Senate proposes a further extension of that

Act to 1 July 1977. What I have now said to the Senate is consistent with the attitude expressed on 6 May and it is now for the industry, the Government and other interested parties to combine together to work out matters in detail.

Before I finish, I want to say something about the impact on the staff of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority of what I have just told the Senate. I have already reminded honourable senators that a redundancy agreement exists with the unions and the provisions of this are designed to protect the staff of the Authority in the event that the Authority may be abolished. Moreover, as provided in staff rules of the Authority, the staff of” the Authority has been given six months initial warning of likely retrenchment. When the Minister made his statement in May and Parliament extended the life of the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act until the end of December this year, it was envisaged that by that time new arrangements for the industry would have been worked out and that, therefore, the initial warning to the ASIA staff about likely redundancy would not have to be extended. However, as will be clear to the Senate, the Government has viewed the whole matter as being one of such seriousness that decisions about it are not to be rushed but approached in a measured and deliberate way. Unfortunately, this can create uncertainties for the staff of the Authority as to their future. The Minister is very conscious of this and he has already had discussions with the unions whose members are employed by the Authority in an effort to allay any uncertainties and to confirm the arrangements that already exist with the unions. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2521

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

The Bill seeks to amend the Stevedoring Industry Act 1956 by repealing the provisions of that Act which establish a scheme of long service leave for waterside workers. This Bill is a companion to the Bill to amend the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act and in relation to which I have outlined to the Senate the Government’s course of action towards developing new arrangements in the stevedoring industry. It is the wish of the parties to the industry that long service leave for waterside workers should no longer derive from the Stevedoring Industry Act but from an award of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In the Government’s view this is consistent with the overall trend in the industry for several years now. Thus, the Government is prepared to accede to that wish and provided that an award is made by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission consistent with the Commission’s principles as to long service leave the proposed change will come into force.

The Government also proposes in this Bill to remove the existing statutory limit on the extent of borrowings by the Authority. The existence of a limit in the legislation is not consistent with the more or less standard provisions of statutory authorities generally. It is not yet clear to what extent the Authority will be able to finance from its existing cash resources the costs involved in the immediate future of the redundancy measures I have already outlined. The proposed removal of the borrowing limit provides the Authority with the option of seeking additional short term borrowings should this be necessary. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2521

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Motion (by Senator Durack) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2522

NITROGENOUS FERTILIZERS SUBSIDY AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 December, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– Last evening we began the debate on the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill (No. 2). I said then that the Opposition did not oppose the Bill but that we did want to make some critical comments upon the inability of the Government in any of the some 50 Bills that have been considered by the Parliament on the initiative of the conservative Government during 1976 to do much to alleviate the grave plight of farmers. I referred particularly to those who can be described as middle or small farmers, who are subjected to a low income position and whose grievous plight is acknowledged, even in the pronouncements of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). They acknowledge the problems of negative income which face so many of the farmers in those categories. I said last night that it was the farm sector as well as the unemployed which required the sympathetic consideration of the Parliament and particularly of the Government.

We are entitled to say that both of these areas are receiving scant or little attention from the Government whose principal thrusts in the stimulation of the private sector have been to get under way another mining boom and to concern itself with the development of what is under the ground rather than what is on the ground. To develop what is on the ground should be the responsibility of this Government because its members were very eloquent during 1 975 about the plight of those who earn their living from activities above the ground. Yet all the Bills we have been concerned with this year dealing with primary industry have been Bills to preserve the position taken by previous conservative governments or to continue the initiatives taken by the Labor Government. In no case has there been any endeavour to introduce the fundamental and structural changes that are needed because of the export component of agriculture in a way that will alleviate the poverty and the hardship and give to farmers the sort of support they need in these critical times.

I believe that even with the devaluation proposals, which some farmers and farmer organisations believe will be some sort of panacea which will have a tremendous impact upon the farming community, unless there is very firm control of the inflow of capital in the immediate period we may well find that the economic measure which the Government took last Sunday will prove to be a boomerang and that within a year or two it will push this country into a position where it will be forced to consider revaluation, which in the context of agriculture would be a very disastrous position to face. There is no question that farmers are being denied the right to obtain a fair day’s pay for their work. When one considers that most farmers have to engage in the area of capital investment, they do not receive a decent return on capital invested nor do they receive a decent return for the labour that they perform. They are therefore in somewhat the same category as workers who want the right to work but who for reasons beyond their control, whether in the rural or urban sectors, are not able to achieve that objective.

The priorities as well as the credibility of this Government can be judged by the Minister’s own statement before last year’s election when he was in Opposition. Dealing specifically with this legislation, on the Policy Makers program on 25 November 1975 Mr Sinclair stated that a Liberal-Country Party’s policy ‘is to maintain the nitrogen bounty at its present level’. Of course, in that program he was endeavouring to suggest that Dr Patterson was going to make a recommendation to the Cabinet at that time that the Labor Government adopt the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission. On the program Mr Sinclair subjected Dr Patterson to a great deal of critical examination and ignored the fact that Dr Patterson had not made any such submission to the Government. The interesting thing was that Mr Sinclair committed himself and his Party- I think we are entitled to draw the conclusion that he committed his future Government- to maintain the nitrogen bounty at its present level. He went on to say:

Our firm policy has not been to eliminate the nitrogen bounty.

Just a year later legislation is before the Parliament reducing the bounty. As I said yesterday, when the Labor Government was giving consideration to the recommendations on the superphosphate bounty there was a great hullabaloo about that decision and that piece of legislation. It seems incredible that the rural sector is accepting this proposal without much comment at all.

I think it is proper that the IAC should make recommendations about various sectors of the Australian economy, but I find myself at variance with the Government’s attitude when it adopts some parts of.the. IAC recommendations but not the major parts. Of course, the bounties which have been paid to farmers are acrosstheboard bounties which depend upon the size of the farm, the usage of the fertiliser and upon production. So the Government has the capacity to give greater aid to the large and less aid to the small. The IAC report went on to point out that there was a very strong ground for the Government to give consideration to the establishment of a household support income so that all people in this country, whatever their level of income and whatever their circumstances, would have at least a basic household income. As I said, that recommendation has been ignored by the Government. I do not think anything can be said other than that Mr Sinclair and the Government have not kept their word and that this is another pre-election promise which has been broken by the Government.

I believe that the Government must closely monitor the effects of the reduction in the subsidy to determine whether the IAC projections will prove true or false. The Government has a duty to determine that total farm costs do not rise by more than 2 per cent for farmers applying large amounts of fertiliser or by more than 1 per cent for the majority of users. The principal users of this type of fertiliser are those who reside in Queensland and operate in the sugar cane industry. Yesterday I spoke about the 3 major Australian industries which were in a state of crisisthe dairy industry, the beef industry and the fruit industry. We were able to say a few months ago that there was a degree of stability and wellbeing in the wool, wheat and sugar industries, but a new element has come into the sugar industry which shows that even that industry is being affected by world markets and trends overseas.

We still need to have a monitoring responsibility to determine that the withdrawal of the subsidy will not cause severe dislocation not only to farmers but also to local manufacturers, as predicted by those who carried out the investigation into the industry. As the Senate will recall, the IAC estimated that the decline in total demand for nitrogenous fertilisers in the 1976 season would be about 16 per cent and in the 1981 season about 20 per cent to 25 per cent. I refer to 1981 because that is the last stage of the projections and recommendations of the IAC. It also predicted that it was unlikely that output by local manufacturers of fertiliser would be reduced to the same extent as the reduction in local demand because of opportunities for exporting local surplus to oversea markets. It is likely that Australian manufacturers will be able to find export markets for at least part of their surplus output and so maintain unit costs of production at levels close to those which would be achieved if the subsidy were to continue. What I am drawing attention to is not only the effect that the decline in demand will have upon the farming community but also the effect it will have upon the industry which manufactures the product as well. If these projections are found to be accurate, there could be no substantial dislocation to the local manufacturers of nitrogen.

As I have stated, the Opposition accepts the legislation but does not accept the almost criminal disregard for members of the rural community in need. I have stressed that point in a number of contributions I have made in debates on other Bills in the Senate this week. The Opposition accepts the IAC’s report, which submits at page 3:

A subsidy on nitrogenous fertilisers would not necessarily direct the assistance towards those rural activities in need of income support or cost reduction. The volume of consumption of nitrogenous fertilisers is not synonymous with need for assistance.

The Government does nothing to assist those people in need. I suppose it could be said that one thing at least that is achieved by this amendment is that for the first time the Government has admitted that an across-the-board subsidy to all producers tends to assist those producers who are able to produce more rather than those who require more assistance. By phasing out this assistance in the first year of its operation, we believe that there is a tacit acceptance of the view which the Labor Party has been expressing in the Parliament over the last several years. In a sense, it is an historic change of opinion for the Liberal and National Country Parties. Perhaps enlightenment is finally dawning upon them and they are able to see that that sort of assistance does not bring about the desired result.

I recall that last year when I was chairman of a Senate committee inquiring into Government assistance to industry Treasury finally gave us some figures which showed that something like $258m had been paid in the form of direct payments, subsidies and concessions to the rural sector. I am not quarrelling with the initiatives that have been taken by governments over the last 10-year period. The Labor Government’s contribution was $843m. So in money terms it virtually equated the amount of assistance. But I think we are entitled to ask: Where has it got us? Have there been lasting benefits? Has it brought about stability? Has it achieved the desired purpose? I think that it is proper, therefore, that the Parliament ought to be examining such large scale expenditure of public funds- not necessarily for the purpose of restricting it but to see the value of it and to see whether the objectives that prompted governments to make available such sums of money have been realised.

We hear a lot about expenditure of the taxpayers’ money and public funds. The committee to which I have referred and of which I was chairman sat for a considerable period of time and heard a lot of evidence. In fact, its draft report was in my hands and ready to be made available to the other members of the commitee when this Government assumed office. I regret that this Government refused to reconstitute that committee, which was looking at assistance not only to rural industry but also to industry generally. Considering the sort of money that nas been spent, I think it is only proper that we should be exercising a role of supervision- not necessarily a role that is critical of the amounts of money spent but to see whether value has been reached in that direction. I would say that this change of opinion to which I have drawn attention and which I am assuming to be correct ought to be applied by the Government to the superphosphate bounty on the condition that the sum to be allocated under the bounty- that is, the sum of $50m- is allocated to those persons who are in need of assistance and not in the across the board fashion with which the Government has associated itself in that piece of legislation.

When I talk about poverty among farmers I am talking about the farmers in many areas- of Australia but particularly, because I represent New South Wales, about those in northern New South Wales. The report by the Henderson Committeethe Committee of Inquiry into Povertyreferred to the fact that nearly 40 per cent of all farmers surveyed were in poverty or had incomes only marginally above the poverty line and that 15 to 24 per cent of the dairy farmers on the North Coast of New South Wales are in poverty. Those honourable senators who are wondering why the Labor Government in New South Wales is considering some reallocation of the access to quotas ought to reflect upon that. Some of the dairy farmers in New South Wales are receiving tremendous incomes from the privileged position; yet there is extreme poverty amongst dairy farmers in the northern part of New South Wales. Of course, those figures were put together several years ago. I think we would be entitled to assume that the figures would be much higher today, particularly if the Bureau of Agricultural Economics’ projection for next year in respect to rural incomes is correct. It has forecast a 36 per cent drop in rural income. Making adjustment for the devaluation, that represents 21 per cent. Surely nobody would be happy to see a continuation of that state of affairs.

The Labor Party calls upon the Government to act to relieve the economic pressures that are exerting themselves upon re- examination small farmers in this country and to replace product based subsidies with genuine assistance which will assist farmers and the rural communities. The Government has attempted in the past to excuse itself by claiming that it had to cut back the deficit and therefore could not assist rural Australia. This excuse should be put to rest once and for all. The Government cannot claim to be genuinely concerned with rural industries when its first Budget emailed a return of $25m from primary industries to the Treasury. In this period of a tremendous downturn there is a need for a re-examination of the provision of public funds to the rural sector. This Budget has to be compared with the first Labor Budget, which allocated an extra $29m to the rural industries. We did that in our first year in office, which was a time when we cut the Budget deficit of the previous Government by $4 lorn. We do not hear anything about that. We reduced the deficit considerably in our first year in office, yet increased the allocation to the rural sector.

In 1976-77 the Budget deficit has not been substantially reduced, especially when one takes certain factors into consideration. I do not know how much longer we have to point out these facts to the Senate and to draw the Senate ‘s attention to these matters. We constantly hear spokesmen for the Government making reference in this place to the deficit as though it is the be all and end all of public accounting. The factors which should be taken into account include the imposition of the Medibank levy, the $240m refunded to the Treasury by the wool and wheat industries, the $200m which the Australian Telecommunications Commission had cut from its Budget and which it had therefore to borrow on the open market for its capital program and the additional funds necessary for the increased unemployment benefit as well as the additional program for Aborigines that was announced after the Government brought down its Budget. Those factors indicate the areas in which the deficit has been reduced.

There is at least one member of the National Country Party of Australia in the other place who has stood up for the plight of the fanners. I would like to quote him. He has been honest enough to admit that in 1973 farmers had a good year. He said:

In 1973, at the time the Industries Assistance Commission report was prepared, average farm incomes were almost at record levels- about S280-plus per week.

That is on average, of course. He went on to say:

Next year average weekly earnings for Australians are going to be more than SI 70 per week while average farm incomes are going to be down to $ 1 26 per week.

He went on to say:

There will be a 36 per cent drop in average farm incomes in one year.

At long last even members of the National Country Party, who seem to be the last ones to do so, are learning about the economic trends in this country. The truth is beginning to come out. Mr Whitlam has been traduced throughout the countryside for what he said in 1973. Honourable senators will remember the famous wordsGovernment supporters might describe them as infamous words- he used when he said that farmers had never had it so good. He was only referring to an objective fact. Yet our opponents were able to use their propaganda machine against the Labor Government and to misrepresent the then Prime Minister by attributing that statement to a year in which real farm incomes had undergone a dramatic drop.

I have obtained from the Parliamentary Library a comparison of the average weekly earnings and farm incomes over a certain period. What Mr Whitlam said that year is borne out by the facts. For example, in 1970-71 the average farm income was $4,713. The following year it increased to $5,982. In 1972-73-the first year of the Labor Government- it was $9,342. The next year, which was the year in which Mr Whitlam made his statement, it jumped to $15,902. It then dropped to $9,672 and then to $9, 1 94. Of course, the projections are that it is going to drop in those money terms by about one-third. The record ought to be put straight. I think that the context in which Mr Whitlam made those remarks ought to be understood. I do not think that the Labor Government necessarily should claim any credit for that, but I do not think that it ought to be kicked to death for the decline that subsequently occurred. Of course, if the BAE’s projections prove to be only half accurate, it could be said that the genuine farmer has never had it so bad as he has had after one year in office of the Fraser Government.

The rate of unemployment is higher in rural areas than it is in city areas. Real farm income has dropped by a mammoth 36 per cent. Cutbacks in health, education and social welfare programs are adding to the disadvantages of those who live in isolated areas. I think that the whole evidence shows that there is a need for some energetic action. In this respect I am thinking not of the sort of action that would increase the level across the board to farmers but of the sort of action that would provide assistance to those farmers- they represent some 50 per cent of the broad spectrum of the rural sector- who ought to be getting some Government assistance that will enable them to overcome the difficulties that they are presently facing. The Government has not done this, in spite of its election propaganda. It has had an opportunity to introduce such legislation. Even the Bill that is projected to come into this Parliament next week to deal with income equalisation deposits ignores the fact that it is not a question of farmers being able to put aside surplus funds for, as everybody familiar with the rural scene knows, half the farmers have no income to declare in their tax returns. In fact, many of them are in a negative position.

We are correct in saying, and we will continue to say, that the Government is condemned for its inaction. We call upon the Government to examine again its responsibilities in this area, to recognise the need and to provide the sorts of initiatives that will give some financial relief to those farmers who are suffering very considerably because of factors that are completely beyond their control. Markets which were once buoyant are now restricted and even denied. Of course this piece of legislation, which we support, at least does not deliver a knock-out blow to those farmers to whom I refer, even though they are that group of farmers that will benefit least of all from it.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-The Bill we are debating is the Nitrogenous Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976. We have just listened to a 55 minute speech by Senator Gietzelt, the spokesman for the Australian Labor Party on rural matters. I hope to present some more facts than he did in a quarter of the time. I would like to devote the first portion of my address to some of the points made by Senator Gietzelt. He made a thoughtful speech and made some good points. I agree in particular with his point regarding long term planning. Successive governments have neglected this area rather badly. I know situations change tremendously and it is a very difficult area, but I think we should all attempt to do more work in this area.

Senator Gietzelt mentioned last night the lack of prominence the Government has given to rural Bills. He suggested that because this Bill was introduced so late in the session the Government did not give any prominence to rural matters. I draw his attention to the fact that earlier this year there were many rural matters before this Parliament-in fact, so much so that some of my legal friends were complaining that all we seemed to do was talk about rural matters. It is rather interesting that he should mention the protests that confronted the Labor Government when it removed the superphosphate bounty and compared that situation with the lack of protest when the Government is talking about scaling down the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty. I suggest the reason for this is that the Labor Party’s priorities were completely the reverse of what they should have been. The superphosphate bounty is a much more important issue for rural producers than is the one we are discussing now. He mentioned the projected problem in relation to devaluation. He claimed that devaluation will not make a big difference to rural incomes. I direct his attention to the latest report of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, which sets out infinite terms predictions for each rural industry. It shows quite dramatic increases in income for a range of rural industries.

I stress once again, as I have many times before, that money spent by successive governments is no criterion for assessing the worth of assistance given to rural people. It is the associated actions of governments that make all the difference. Devaluation is one very important aspect that will help rural producers. The Labor Party seemed to suggest that money spent to assist areas in Australian life is the be all and end all of the degree of assistance given. Senator Gietzelt suggested that the Government is doing nothing for the rural producer. I direct his attention to the lifting of the wool reserve price and to its automatic adjustment by 17 1/2 per cent when devaluation came about. He said that we were not fulfilling all the recommendations of Industries Assistance Commission reports. I draw his attention and the attention of other honourable senators opposite to the fact that the Labor Government virtually ignored every IAC recommendation with regard to rural industry.

The Bill extends to the end of this year the present rate of subsidy on nitrogenous fertilisers. The present rate is $78.74 per tonne of nitrogen content. It is projected that the 1977 subsidy will be $60 a tonne. This is in line with the IAC recommendation, except that we have delayed for one year the carrying out of the recommendation. I support the Bill with some reluctance because the subsidy provides sectional assistance. It will assist only a few farmers. By comparison, the superphosphate bounty that the Labor Party did away with has a much wider effect. The Labor

Party supported the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy and, as is well known, eliminated the superphosphate bounty. I suggest its priorities were completely wrong. It was only as recently as April of this year, when we were debating these 2 subsidies, that the Labor Party very strongly supported the continuation of the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy and very strongly argued against our action of re-introducing the superphosphate bounty.

The reason I suggest that nitrogenous fertiliser has a selective benefit is that nitrogeneous fertiliser is not residual. It is used for one year and has no effect in subsequent years. Superphosphate on the other hand is a residual fertiliser and has effect for many years following its application. Nitrogen is only consistently used where yields are fairly assured. I refer in particular to irrigation areas and crops like sugar cane, vegetables, fruit, rice and cotton that are in most cases irrigated. Their yields are consistent, regular and almost predictable. The use of nitrogen results in a measured and calculable increase in production. It is not used to any extent in dry land farming. The bulk of farming in Australia is dry land farming. It is not used because seasonal variations make yields unpredictable. Nitrogen is a very expensive fertiliser and it is too risky to use it in dry land situations.

There is an alternative to nitrogen in the dry land farm areas. Leguminous plants such as our well known subterranean clovers can be used. They can be established in most areas. They in fact do as good a job as nitrogen for far less expense. Of course they can be used for stock fodder as well. In the lighter lands of Western Australia in particular a new development is the use of a 2-year rotation of lupins and a cereal plant. If the weed problems can be solved there will be a tremendous saving of fertiliser. It was also suggested in the IAC report of September 1975 that those who use nitrogen now will continue to use nitrogen, irrespective of the reduction in the amount of the bounty. At this stage I should like to pay a tribute to the Western Australian Department of Agriculture which has done a tremendous amount of work in this area. It has laid out very clearly the optimum uses of nitrogen and superphosphate and it has followed that up with a lot of field work.

I should like to devote some time to rural assistance generally. I disagree very strongly with the loss of any assistance to rural industries.

Everyone in Australia, no matter what employment or industry in which he is occupied, receives some assistance from the government, directly or indirectly. It is well acknowledged, certainly in rural circles, that rural producers generally receive less by way of assistance than do most other areas of occupation. In fact, in talking about tariff added costs, the extra costs that accrue to rural producers through the tariff system are higher than what the producers receive in government assistance. This can be well borne out by a publication that was put out back in March of this year by the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council which demonstrated that for those farmers employed in the meat and grain producing areas the extra cost, because of tariff added costs, was of the order of $4,000 per producer per year. It also makes the point that the gross subsidy equivalent of tariffs to those people employed in those industries that are protected by tariffs is of the order of $3,000m a year. I instance just one industry that of course has been in the headlines lately- the shipbuilding industry. The amount of assistance received from tariff protection for people employed in that industry is well known. This applies also to the motor car industry. Each employee there receives virtually a subsidy of $4,000.

The problem with this sort of distortion is that it creates inefficiencies. It puts resources into inefficient areas and takes them away from efficient areas. I strongly support the work of the IAC in drawing the attention of the public and the government to the inequities that do occur in this area. As a result of this distortion there are also drifts in the work force. I have some information here from the Parliamentary Library which demonstrates that back in 1921- that was a long time ago- there was an equal number of persons employed in primary industry and in secondary industry. Contrary to the information we have received from some manufacturing industries, the secondary industry has increased its work force between 1966 and 1976. It was just a gradual increase. But the work force in primary industry has dropped tremendously. In 1921 it was about half a million and it has reduced quite dramatically in those 10 years between 1966 and 1976. The area that has taken up the slack has been in the service industries in which there has been a very large increase in employment.

As I said at the beginning of my address, there are matters that have a much greater effect on the well-being of primary producers than does government assistance. I refer in particular to the nitrogen subsidy. Inflation has a damaging effect on primary producers, particularly those who depend almost entirely on exports for their income. In this respect inflation remains the present government’s major priority. Certainly the senators on this side of the chamber fully support the Government’s actions in this very important sector of industry.

Some other actions that can certainly ease the plight of rural producers include doing what this Government has done in upgrading the area of rural reconstruction to allow producers to move from one area of production to another with minimum hardship. It is certainly a priority of this Government to do whatever it can to maintain and increase our trade agreements with other countries and to break down trade agreements. Unfortunately Australia is very highly protected as far as imports are concerned, so we cannot really blame other countries if they start raising higher trading barriers against us, but this Government is doing all it can to reduce those trade barriers. A very important step that is being undertaken by many industries- and certainly the Government is doing all it can to assist- is to improve efficiency in areas of handling, processing and freight costs. Much more work needs to be done on these matters and it is being carried out by this Government.

I would like the Government to draw a greater distinction between that sort of assistance because of a short term aberration in the market and an area that I would like to call welfare. We get a situation in the country in which many people who are receiving what is virtually welfare in a form of assistance are, because of the rate of welfare, persuaded that their particular industry has a future. That tends to fog the producer into believing that his industry has a future. I would like to see a greater distinction made between short term assistance to an industry that has a short-term down turn in its prices and the sort of welfare area that will assist producers to leave agriculture altogether or to go into some other area of production. I support the Bill.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The speakers’ list which was shown to me in relation to discussion on this Bill yesterday I think it still applies- to my very great surprise contains no speakers from Queensland, except my colleague Senator Keeffe. I would have thought, given the fact that the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty is proportionately more important to the State of Queensland than it is to any other State, and the fact that we have in the Senate such sturdy independents and trenchant States’ lighters from Queensland as Senator

Martin, Senator Bonner and Senator Wood, that one of these Liberal Party senators would have stood up in this debate and criticised most severely his own party for bringing in a measure which would disadvantage Queensland proportionately more than any other State. I am extremely surprised that only my colleague Senator Keeffe who is on the Labor Party side of the Senate has seen fit to enter the debate whereas all the Liberal Party senators, who preach their own independence, who proclaim their own independence, and assert that this chamber is the States’ rights House, cannot be flushed out of their burrows to participate in the debate.

My second observation is that I think it is fairly clear that this piece of legislation is an anti biggovernment measure of the type one might expect from the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), who continually asserts his belief that people should be allowed to organise their own lives, that individuals should be able to exercise maximum personal discretion in the way in which they dispose of their own income and with a minimum of arbitrary interference by governments. So it is very clearly an anti biggovernment measure of the type we might expect from the present Prime Minister. It is clearly a product of the same total belief in the free enterprise market economy that impels the Prime Minister to fight tooth and claw against such arbitrary government intervention or interference with sections of the free market, such as tariffs and the payment of a superphosphate bounty, and also compels the Prime Minister to fight tooth and claw against any interference with the principle of tax neutrality- for example, investment allowances which subsidise the substitution of capital for labour or special tax deductions for life assurance which induce a much greater flow of funds into life assurance companies than would occur in a free market situation.

So clearly the Prime Minister, in introducing this Bill which allows the free market forces greater power than they had previously, is being totally consistent with his well-known trenchant opposition to high tariffs, to paying a superphosphate bounty or to manipulating the taxation laws in such a way that the pattern of consumer spending and investment is distorted from what would prevail in the free market situation.

However, irony and generalised prime ministerial double talk aside, we criticise the government parties not because they have introduced this Bill but because of their long-standing and continuing duplicity on the subject; and I refer particularly to the duplicity of the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). During the 1974 election campaign Mr Sinclair on 8 May 1974 said:

Now that the Labor Government has at least admitted that inflation is an urgent national problem, it seems that one of the first actions it would take if re-elected would be to cancel the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty.

Mr Sinclair had asserted earlier in that same statement that the Labor Party would do precisely that if re-elected. What I am more interested in at the moment, however, is Mr Sinclair’s stated belief at that time that the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty was a significant antiinflationary tool. If Mr Sinclair believed that then, why is Mr Sinclair sanctioning the introduction of a Bill which seeks to reduce the amount of the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty now that he is a senior Minister in a government which only last Sunday trenchantly proclaimed the belief that inflation was the nation’s No. 1 problem and that the control of inflation was the Government’s No. 1 priority? Apparently Mr Sinclair’s economic analysis varies depending on whether he is in government or whether he is in Opposition.

He then said that if the Liberal-National Country Parties were elected to government in 1974 they would ‘ensure that the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty continues’. Arising from that Press statement of 8 May was an interchange in the Queensland Press between Dr Patterson and Mr Sinclair. Dr Patterson replied to Mr Sinclair’s allegation that the Labor Government, if reelected, would cancel the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty. This is reported in the Mackay Daily Mercury of 10 May 1974. On 8 April as Minister for Northern Development and as the Minister responsible for sugar matters in the Federal sphere Dr Patterson issued a ministerial statement in which he outlined the Cabinet decision to continue with the fertiliser subsidy. Mr Sinclair’s reply to Dr Patterson was printed in the Daily Mercury the next day. Mr Sinclair had the audacity to say:

On the statement I made regarding the nitrogenous bounty, it is Dr Patterson ‘s credibility which is at stake.

That is an interesting statement in view of the subsequent claim Mr Sinclair made in the House of Representatives on 23 July 1974, after Dr Patterson had drawn attention to the highly misleading- to use the euphemistic termstatements which Mr Sinclair had issued. Dr Patterson had drawn attention to those statements earlier in the House of Representatives on 23 July 1974. Mr Sinclair said:

This afternoon there has been a suggestion that when I was in Mackay I suggested that the Government might have second thoughts about the payment of the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty.

What he actually said on 8 May 1974 in his Press statement was this: the Labor Government if re-elected would immediately cancel the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty.

He used the words ‘immediately cancel’ in his own Press statement and then 3 months later he says that he suggested that the Government might have second thoughts about the payment of a nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy. It is not Dr Patterson’s credibility which is or which was at stake in regard to this issue; it is the credibility of the present Minister for Primary Industry, and it has been totally destroyed. Then again during the 1975 election campaign Mr Sinclair repeated his previous false assertion that the Labor Party would, if elected, immediately eliminate the bounty and so on. Then he went on to say:

Our present policy -

That is, the Liberal-National Country Party coalition- is to maintain the nitrogen bounty at its present level. If Dr Patterson’s concept is to accept the IAC recommendation he will know that that will mean the phasing out of the nitrogenous bounty over the next 3 years.

That statement was made on the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s radio program Policy Makers on 25 November 1975. Mr Sinclair said on that occasion that the policy of what is now the coalition Government is to continue with the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty, and he accused Dr Patterson of intending to accept the IAC recommendations. We find that that sort of obfuscation and double talk continues right up to 1976.

In the Budget Speech the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) said that the Government had accepted in principle the IAC recommendation to phase out the bounty over 3 years. In other words, that is precisely what Mr Sinclair accused Dr Patterson of having done and that is precisely what he denied that he would do. That statement apparently was made on the very day- this is reported in the October issue of the Australian Sugar Journal- the Minister for Primary Industry told the Queensland sugar growers, who were a bit disturbed about this, of course, that a review of the nitrogenous subsidy would take place in 1977 in the light of the outlook for the various rural industries to decide the future level of assistance. So on the same day as the Treasury said that the Government was accepting in principle the decision to phase out the bounty, Mr Sinclair said that the Government had not accepted that decision to phase it out. To the annual conference of the small seed producers held at Naracoorte in South Australia in September Mr Sinclair said:

Don’t let anybody say that we have decided to phase out the bounty.

So we have the Treasurer saying one thing, the Minister who introduced this Bill in the other place, Mr Howard, repeating the same statement when he introduced it, and the Minister for Primary Industry running around and telling various farmer organisations that that is not the Government’s policy at all. I endeavoured to get some clarification with regard to this issue by directing a question to Senator Cotton on 2 November about the Government’s future policy. I asked whether the Government really was going to follow the IAC recommendations, the first instalment of which is this Bill now before the Senate, or whether it was going to continue paying the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty. On 30 November Senator Cotton was good enough to supply me with this reply which he had received from the Treasurer:

The Government considered the report of the Industries Assistance Commission which recommended that the subsidy of $78.74 per tonne of the nitrogen content of nitrogenous fertilisers be phased out over 3 years.

The Government agreed in principle that the subsidy should be phased out and introduced legislation to reduce the rate to $60 per tonne from 1 January 1977. As the Minister for Primary Industry announced, a review will take place in 1977 in the light of the outlook for the various rural industries to decide the level of future assistance.

So it now seems that we are back in the position where the Government has made a statement of what it purports to be its firm policy, but which has now been watered down and modified. It has been subject to all the usual pressures which are brought to bear on this Government, Nobody knows what the Government’s policy is. I should be very grateful if the responsible Minister in the Senate could spell out unequivocally and precisely what the policy of this government is for the future on this bounty.

I refer briefly to what various other Government members said about the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty back in September 1974. On 26 September 1974, the present Minister for Primary Industry, when speaking in the House of Representatives said:

It is true that if we are having a look at the rising inflationary pressures in Australia production or the lack of it tends to be a material element. I submit that any type of stimulus to production is a way by which inflationary pressures can be countered.

He went on to talk about various other aspects of the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty. The honourable member for Wide Bay, Mr Millar, when speaking about this bounty 2 years ago said.

In actual fact, it -

That is, the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty- is a legitimate fiscal device to support an industry to the ultimate benefit of the community at large. This, of course, produces a bounty for all.

Obviously Mr Millar has changed his mind in the last 2 years because when his Party was in power he offered no objection to his Government commencing the phasing out of this bounty. The honourable member for Darling Downs, Mr McVeigh, on the same day in the House of Representatives, said:

It has been reliably assessed that if the subsidy were abandoned on account of loss of productivity a lesser amount of taxation would be collected than would meet the cost of maintaining the subsidy.

In other words, at that time, the honourable member for Darling Downs was saying that in fact the Government receives more revenue from paying the subsidy than it costs to pay the subsidy. Either the honourable member for Darling Downs was wrong then and his ‘reliably assessed’ figures were not very reliable, or he just made them up, or he has changed his mind since. I suggest the reason he has changed his mind since is that he, like so many other people in this present Government, has 2 entirely different and contradictory views- one for when in government and the other for when in Opposition.

On the question of the subsidy itself, it is possible that the payment of a subsidy can be justified on purely economic grounds under very limited conditions. Those conditions would be those where an industry has been disadvantaged by the existence of the Australian tariff or by the level of protection afforded to other Australian industries- the tariff compensation argument, as it is called- and where the production of the end commodity is responsive to changes in prices for the commodity or for changes in the cost of producing that commodity, and also where the demand for that commodity is price elastic. All of these pre-conditions are, in fact, very rarely encountered, but in the last couple of years they have existed with regard to nitrogenous fertiliser in Australia. Nitrogen was used overwhelmingly for the production of wheat and sugar. Both of these commodities are price responsive. In terms of a cheaper input of a fertiliser such as this probably increases their use and their yield. Both of those commodities could then readily be sold at an attractive price on world markets. The situation has changed somewhat since then. But under that very unusual set of conditions which just happened to coincide in the last couple of years, there was probably a case on purely economic grounds for paying that subsidy on nitrogenous fertiliser. There is always a conflict between the justification which may sometimes exist for paying a subsidy on purely economic grounds- on grounds of resource allocation- and welfare. To summarise: A subsidy perhaps can be justified on purely economic grounds when an industry is booming, when the demand for its product is high and when prices are high and the demand is elastic. Under those conditions, of course, producers are very prosperous. When the. producers are not prosperous- and some people would attempt to justify payments of subsidies on inputs or outputs in those circumstancespayment of an input or output bounty only exacerbates the economic problems, the economic inefficiency which is usually closely related to over-production. Always there is this conflict of interest between justification for paying a bounty on purely economic grounds and an attempt at justification for paying bounty on social welfare grounds. Of course the latter, in any case, is never valid because the distribution of such bounties is highly regressive. It is a very ineffective and inefficient way of distributing welfare payments.

The Australian Sugar Journal of October 1976, to which I referred earlier, drew attention to an interesting contradiction between the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission on the superphosphate bounty and on the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty. I might add that this contradition has been subsequently endorsed by this Government since it more or less followed the IAC recommendations in both cases. An article by Mr Jilek in the Journal states:

The third and final area in which the IAC left itself open to severe criticism concerns fertilizers. What happened here is devastatingly simple. In two separate inquiries on two separate fertilizers- both inquiries raising virtually identical economic principles- the IAC drew two totally opposite conclusions. And it presented the government with two diametrically opposed and inconsistent recommendations. In doing this, the IAC placed the government in a delicate situation which has by no means been resolved.

The article continues:

In a statement dated 7 October 1976, Mr John Wilkins, Managing Director of Consolidated Fertilizers Ltd put the matter as follows:

The recommendation to phase out the Nitrogen Subsidy over a three (3) year period made in the Nitrogenous Fertilizer Subsidy Report of the IAC, dated 5 September 1975, is inconsistent with the recommendations contained in the draft report on superphosphate, dated July 1976.

Specifically-

  1. The tariff compensation argument, which was the main basis on which the recommendation to continue the Phosphate Bounty was based, was rejected in the Nitrogen Subsidy Report.
  2. Arguments favouring the continuance of the Phosphate Bounty based on increased efficiency of resource use are equally applicable to the Nitrogen Subsidy.
  3. The acceptance that the main phosphate users have a low cost status, i.e. are economic producers, is also a factor in favour of the continuance of the Nitrogen Subsidy.

Mr Jilek very rightly drew attention to the totally contradictory conclusions and recommendations of those 2 IAC reports. He might have mentioned, but did not, that of course those reports were drawn up by 2 different groups of people. So it may or may not have been a genuine, subjective difference of opinion between the 2 different groups of people who drew up the reports. What I am more interested in now is the simple fact that this Government, the same group of people, in 2 separate instances has now taken a totally contradictory position and endorsed 2 totally inconsistent and contradictory recommendations. The Government does not have the excuse that the IAC has- that one group of people did one thing and another group did the contrary. This same group of people in this Government contradicted themselves. In looking for a reason for that, the only one that appears readily to me is the simple fact that about half the members of the present Cabinet are users of superphosphate in quite large quantities, but I do not think they are users of nitrogen. There may be some other explanation but that is the only one that occurs to me. As yet, nobody has mentioned an alternative explanation for this contradiction in the Government’s policies.

Senator Walters:

– Surely you are going to mention wealthy farmers. You always do.

Senator WALSH:

-If Senator Walters wants me to mention the simple fact that the Prime Minister, whose income I could not estimate or even imagine, used to receive and presumably still receives $5,000 a year from the superphosphate subsidy, I am quite happy to do so. Presumably he does not receive so much, or receives nothing at all, from the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty. If Senator Walters is suggesting that that is the reason why the Government reintroduced the superphosphate subsidy- it is worth $5,000 a year to the Prime Minister- and decided to phase out the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty because that is worth nothing to the Prime Minister, I am happy to have that suggestion broadcast. I am not certain that it is true but Senator Walters apparently thinks it might be.

The final point I wish to raise concerns the pricing of nitrogen fertilisers, irrespective of the payment of a subsidy. I put the following question on notice, No. 1239, about 2 months ago to Senator Cotton as the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources:

  1. 1 ) Will sales by petroleum refineries of hydrocarbon feedstock for the production of ammonia and other nitrogenous fertiliser, be counted for Australian crude oil entitlements as from 1 January 1977.
  2. What is the estimated value of that concession per tonne of (a) anhydrous ammonia, and (b) urea, produced from the feedstock.
  3. Is there any mechanism to ensure that the benefit will be passed on to Australian users of nitrogenous fertiliser.

The IAC report on petroleum products pricing drew attention to the fact that as from 1 January next Australian refineries which sold ammonia- I am not sure whether they sell ammonia or the hydrogen gas used to produce ammonia- as a feedstock for fertiliser production would be entitled to count those sales in the assessment for their allocations of what is, by world standards, very cheap Australian crude oil. That was the central fact. Something new was being introduced that effectively provided the oil refineries producing the raw material with a valuable concession in the purchases of crude oil. A week or so ago I received the following answer from Senator Withers:

The value of the feedstock concession, as revealed by the Prices Justification Tribunal, in their Report dated 11 October 1976 is $2,236,000. The value of the concession expressed as dollars per tonne of product is not available.

The answer continued that the Prices Justification Tribunal would be monitoring this issue. That is the point I wish to take up. If all the ammonia sold in this way is used for the production of nitrogen- the answer to the question implies that it is- the consequential gain to Australian oil refineries of $2.36m is equal to, at past consumption levels, $1 1 per tonne of nitrogen or approximately $5 per tonne of urea.

I should like an assurance from the Government that it will do everything possible to ensure that the benefit of that concession is passed on in the price of nitrogenous fertilisers to the ultimate consumer. There is absolutely no reason why that should not be done. If that were done the downwards adjustment of $ 1 1 per tonne of nitrogen would almost offset the price increase which would flow from the commencement of the phasing out of the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty. I am not entirely confident that the Prices Justification Tribunal either has the power or the resources, especially now, to ensure that that is done. I expect the Government to monitor the situation independently of the PJT and ensure that the benefit of this concession is passed on, as it should be, to the final consumer of nitrogenous fertilisers.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-My contribution to the debate will not take a great deal of time. I wish to quote from the Budget papers of this year which state:

Fertiliser Bounties

The Nitrogenous Fertilizer Subsidy Act 1966 authorised subsidy payments on the basis of the nitrogen content in natural sodium nitrate, and in manufactured nitrogenous substances produced and sold in Australia as fertiliser. Late in 1975 the Act was extended to 3 1 December 1976 -

That was during the time of the Labor Government- continuing the $78.74 per tonne subsidy rate, pending consideration of the Industries Assistance Commission report on the subsidy. The Government has accepted in principle the Commission’s recommendation that the subsidy be phased out, and, as announced in the Budget Speech, proposes that the subsidy rate from 1 January 1977 be $60 per tonne. On that basis, subsidy payments in 1976-77 are estimated at $12m.

The Phosphate Fertilizer Bounty Act, which provided for the payment of a bounty in respect of superphosphate and ammonium phosphate produced and sold for use in Australia, expired on 31 December 1974.

The bounty was subsequently renewed by the Labor Government of the day. I now refer to the second reading speech on the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976 presented in the other place and in this chamber. It states: . . The Government had considered the report of the Industries Assistance Commission which recommended the phasing out of the subsidy over 3 years and had agreed in principle that the subsidy should be phased out. As a first step in this direction the Bill proposes that from 1 January 1977 to 31 December 1977 subsidy will be payable at the reduced rate I have mentioned in respect of nitrogenous fertilisers of local production which are sold for use in Australia as fertiliser and also in respect of imported nitrogenous fertilisers which, during that calendar year, are either so used by the importer or are sold by the importer for such use in Australia. The level of subsidy to apply after 3 1 December 1977 will be considered by the Government in the light of economic circumstances prevailing nearer to that time.

I do not think there is likely to be much change in the economic circumstances which are now totally out of the control of this Government. It is possible that the bounty will be abolished totally during the coming calendar year. I have here a table that shows the subsidy that was paid from the year in which it was introduced, 1966-67, to 1974-75. I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator KEEFFE:

– In my youth in northern Queensland, before the use of nitrogenous or artificial fertilisers became general, the usual thing for cane farmers- incidentally it is the cane industry which uses most of the nitrogenous fertiliser as I shall point out in a few moments- was to grow probably 2 ratoon crops of cane, give the land over to fallow and subsequently grow cow peas or some other type of legume which then replenished the nitrogen in the soil before new cane was planted. Very little of this is done now because most of the soil is artificially fertilised. I wish to quote 2 paragraphs from the IAC report. It states:

The evidence suggests that the level of agronomic response to manufactured nitrogen is closely dependent upon the availability of adequate moisture for plant growth; crop responses are less certain, e.g. where moisture is provided by natural rainfall rather than irrigation.

Generally, the greatest responses to nitrogen occur with sugar cane, fruit (excluding vines), vegetables, rice and cotton.

Senator Walsh also mentioned that it is also used to grow wheat. The report goes on to state:

For example, while legumes can provide nitrogen prior to the planting of sugar cane, the practice of continuously cropping the cane for up to 6 years following planting prevents the subsequent use of legumes.

This highlights what I pointed out a moment ago. In the old days 6-year cropping was the exception rather than the rule. Further on in the report the following is stated:

Witnesses drew attention to inputs, other than manufactured nitrogenous fertilizers and nitrogen fixed by leguminous plants, which could be used as sources of nitrogen in a farming system. Meatworks fertilizers, which contain from 4 to 7 per cent nitrogen and 3 to 9 per cent elementary phosphorous, are useful for horticultural purposes. Animal manures, containing 1 per cent nitrogen, are used for some leafy vegetable crops and fruit and vines. However, the low nitrogen content relative to the high costs of handling and transporting such manures were said to make them uneconomic for widespread use.

Hence our great reliance upon the use of nitrogen in the sugar cane industry. As my colleague, Senator Walsh, pointed out, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) was exceptionally quick to restore the superphosphate bounty, which probably in net terms brought him about $5,000 a year. But either because he dislikes the Premier of Queensland or because he thinks Queensland is separating from Australia anywayQueensland uses the greatest amount of nitrogen in Australia- he was equally quick to withdraw the subsidy on that other type of fertilizer. When Senator Wriedt was the Minister for Agriculture and Dr Patterson was the Minister for Northern Development the sugar industry flourished. Long term markets were established, arrangements were made for the sale of sugar on the domestic market and in other places which ensured a period of prosperity for the sugar growers of Queensland and the northern rivers district of New South Wales. That no longer obtains because there is now instability on the world market.

The present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) seems unable to catch up with what is happening. Consequently, we are going to reach the stage where if the nitrogenous fertilizers subsidy is totally withdrawn sugar farmers will be in a very serious plight indeed. I might point out that as far as Queensland is concerned only one per cent of land developed for agriculture uses superphosphate, but thousands upon thousands of acres of sugar cane areas require the use of nitrogenous fertilizers. The Premier of Queensland usually makes very loud noises and when the superphosphate bounty was withdrawn by the Labor Government tremendous noises came from him. It is difficult for me to understand why there was a thunderous silence when the withdrawal of the nitrogenous fertilizers bounty was announced in the Budget Speech. As far as I know, the Premier has not used the word ‘nitrogen’ from that day to this. So we can understand why Government senators, such as Senator Wood, who lives in the heart of the sugar cane area of Mackay, and Senator Bonner and Senator Martin, both of whom would be aware that this measure constitutes a fairly sad blow to the sugar farmers, have not appeared in this chamber during this debate. This is something that they do not want to defend.

The bulk of the one per cent of land developed for agriculture that uses superphosphate, to which I referred, falls within the Fisher electorate, a National Country Party electorate. In fact, the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr

Adermann) lived there for many years until he was given his new portfolio. He then obtained a map and found out where Darwin was. The use of superphosphate is confined almost to that one area, except for backyard farmers. Probably more superphosphate is used by backyard gardeners than is used on farms in Queensland. However, nitrogenous fertilizer means a very big thing to the sugar cane growers, particularly if there is going to be instability in the market. I shall leave this matter on that note. I have made the points I intended to make. It is almost time for the sitting of the Senate to be suspended. I support the statements made by my colleague, Senator Gietzelt, when he introduced debate on this subject.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– in replyThe Opposition is not opposing the Bill to reduce the subsidy on nitrogenous fertilisers, although from the speeches that were made one may have wondered whether that was the case. I am pleased that the Opposition is prepared to accept the Bill despite the comments that have been made by some honourable senators opposite in the course of the debate. I want to refer to one or two matters that were raised in the debate because I think they should be answered. The question was asked: What is the policy of the Government on this matter? I refer to what was said in the second reading speech in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, that is, that the Government has accepted in principle the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission for a phasing out of the subsidy over 3 years. In principle, what the Government has accepted is that the subsidy should be phased out. It has decided, and this is part of its Budget for this year, that from 1 January 1977 to 31 December 1977 the subsidy should be reduced to the figures provided for in the legislation, namely, that instead of the existing subsidy of $78.74 per tonne of nitrogen content it should be $60 per tonne of nitrogen content. After 31 December 1977 the subsidy will be determined by the Government in the light of the economic circumstances prevailing nearer to that time.

What is clearly intended is that this matter will be reviewed again in the Budget context next year and the Government will then announce its decision on what the level of subsidy will be for the year following 31 December 1977. There is no reason from anything that the Government has said for any scare to be created and this is what Senator Keeffe seemed to be doing when he made the suggestion that the Government would be totally abolishing the subsidy by the end of next year. That is purely a scare tactic and a red herring which was introduced into this debate by Senator Keeffe.

Senator Bonner:

– It does him no credit.

Senator DURACK:

– As Senator Bonner said, it certainly did not do Senator Keeffe or the Opposition any credit to introduce these scare tactics and they certainly were not justified by anything which was said by the Government in relation to this Bill or the policy it has adopted. There also were allegations of duplicity on the pan of the Government and, in particular, on the pan of Mr Sinclair. We were subjected to some lengthy quotations from statements made by Mr Sinclair and Dr Patterson back in 1974- 2 Vi years ago. I do not know what possible relevance they have to the debate or to the situation now and I cannot imagine that they would be of any interest to anybody now, except Senator Walsh.

I want to refer to the policy of the Liberal and National Country Parties on primary industry which forms part of the overall policy on which it was elected in December 1975. It is the relevant statement on the matter and I will read what it says in relation to fertiliser bounties under the heading ‘Nitrogen’. It states:

The Industries Assistance Commission report on the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty will be urgently considered. We believe the bounty should be maintained until December 3 1 , 1976 and the IAC will be asked to report in 1976 on the operation of the bounty bearing in mind market prospects for agriculture.

That is the policy and the undertaking of the Government and we have carried it out because we have extended and maintained the bounty until 31 December 1976, have reviewed it in the light of the IAC report and have introduced this legislation. We have been accused of inconsistency or contradictory policies on fertiliser bounties, but in the case of both the superphosphate bounty and the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty we are acting on the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission. It is rather strange to have this accusation made against the Government by the Opposition because it was the Opposition which withdrew the superphosphate bounty and refused to reinstate it despite a recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission. Also it was the Labor Government which did not determine any attitude on the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty after it received the IAC report. As the Bill is being supported I do not proposed to deal with any further arguments that were raised in the debate. I am pleased that the Opposition is supporting it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2534

QUEENSLAND GRANT (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1976

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

-The Senate is dealing with a Bill which authorises a payment through the Grants Commission to Queensland of $2 7m in 1976-77. This payment is in accordance with the recommendations contained in the 43rd report of the Grants Commission and is one of a succession of payments which have been made to several States over the years, especially the smaller States, which are less able to raise revenue by comparison with the larger States such as Victoria and New South Wales. The Opposition will not oppose the legislation. We believe that the position of Queensland has been greatly improved over the years as a result of the operation of the Grants Commission, as has been the case with Tasmania and Western Australia, and I think with South Australia for some time. It is true that Queensland suffers certain disabilities because of its size and the decentralisation of its population, and because of those factors special assistance to Queensland is appropriate and justified.

There are some aspects of the Queensland position which I feel ought to be considered during the course of this debate. An interesting factor about Queensland is that, particularly in Brisbane, it is growing more rapidly than the other eastern States. Between 1971 and 1974 the Moreton region, which includes Brisbane, had a population growth of approximately 3.1 per cent, compared with 2.5 per cent for Queensland as a whole and 1.5 per cent for the rest of Australia. Employment growth in Queensland is slightly higher than in any other eastern State, with a growth of 3.8 per cent in total civilian employment compared with the Australian growth average of 3.4 per cent. This population growth will be of benefit to Queensland but it will place greater strains upon the authorities in that State. Part of the disadvantages from which Queensland suffers is a direct result of the attitude of the Queensland State Government, and it is to that area that I think we should give some consideration. In particular, I refer to its failure to co-operate with federal governments, not only the last Government but this Government, and its lack of planning adds to any disadvantages currently suffered in Queensland.

In his Budget Speech this year the Queensland Treasurer pointed out that the Queensland Budget was influenced by Commonwealth actions in cutting grants to the States in the areas of general revenue and specific purpose payments for sewerage, roads and housing. When one looks at the report of the Grants Commission, it can be seen that the Queensland Government claims special difficulties in the areas of Aborigines, railways and land development. In relation to Aborigines it claims that there is an added drain on its social welfare services because of its high Aboriginal population. Yet that Government has persistently refused to co-operate with the Federal Government in the provision of services to Aborigines. Its refusal not only causes hardship to its Aboriginal population but greatly adds to the cost of running Queensland itself. The Grants Commission report indicates that there were large increases in public railway deficits and in the net impact of railways on Budgets in all States for 1974-75. The Grants Commission makes a particular point in respect of Queensland. In its report it states:

The highest rate of increase was in Queensland where the net impact on the State ‘s finances increased by 63 per cent to $93m.

That is the impact of the railways on Queensland’s State Budget. In particular, those increases resulted from concessions being granted to coal mining companies in central Queensland. During 1974-75, all States except Queensland increased general freight rates during the year, and the Grants Commission again made a point on that particular aspect. It said:

The increase in freight traffic resulted mainly from increases in central Queensland coal traffic to meet export and metropolitan power house requirements.

The concession to the coal miners not only added a burden to all Queenslanders but has resulted in the Grants Commission having a harder look at the level of grants being paid to the Queensland Government. Notwithstanding the difficulties that the cost of the railways is placing on all Queenslanders, the Queensland Government flatly refused to co-operate with the Commonwealth in dealing with the cost of railways. Thus the benefit which accrued to States like Tasmania and South Australia, which were prepared to accept the offer of the railway transfers, was lost to Queensland.

Land development is another area in which the State Government has persistently refused to co-operate with the Commonwealth Government. It has refused attractive offers of large sums of money to establish a land commission and to develop Townsville as a growth centre. The benefit of these programs flowed through to every other State, but due to the attitude of the Queensland Government those benefits were lost to Queensland. That State Government has been noticeably deficient in planning its services. Population increases will make it imperative that a greater degree of planning be undertaken. The Brisbane City Council has made some quite remarkable efforts in recent years to overcome the sewerage problem in that municipality, and 90 per cent of the area for which the Council is responsible is now sewered. But the position is quite different in other shires on the edge of Brisbane. The local authorities in these areas have adopted what might be termed liberal development control policies and this has encouraged development outside the area of the Brisbane City Council. Because the shires have not ensured that the costs of the services were adequately paid for, they have a large sewerage backlog, a backlog in public transport and deficiencies in social and community facilities. In fact, outside the Brisbane City Council area it will be found that the sewerage rate is only 20 per cent. That situation has arisen as a result of a lack of foresight on the part of the Queensland State Government. Consequently, it is forced to make applications to the Grants Commission claiming disabilities in the provision of country sewerage.

The Government also claims disadvantages in relation to the provision of social services, yet everything it does adds to those difficulties. Queensland has 36 000 unemployed, and that is the third highest level of unemployment in Australia. Part of the difficulty is created by a high level of unemployment in the building and construction industry. The most recent report of the planning council for the housing industry made this comment:

In Queensland actual forecast levels of activity in 1976-77 are below the desirable levels which in turn are below the current capacity of the industry. Unless major new developments occur some underutilisation of potential industry capacity may be inevitable.

Yet public housing in Queensland has played a limited role in residential construction over the last decade. Between 1966 and 1974 the Queensland Housing Commission, which determines public sector construction, accounted for only 7.5 per cent of total completions. The Queensland Government has effectively suppressed public sector construction, and is maintaining that policy at a time when there is high unemployment in the State, particularly in the building industry. When that is combined with the spread of social services over the shires outside Brisbane, it is no wonder that the Queensland Government requires special assistance to solve its problems.

Another recent move by the Queensland Government will make life more difficult for many Queenslanders. In commenting on the nature of population throughout Australia, the Grants Commission had this to say:

There are some significant interstate differences in age distribution. Queensland and Tasmania have the lowest proportions in the ‘working-age’ group (19-64). Queensland has the highest proportion of elderly people (65 and over).

The consequence of that is spelt out by the Commission in this way:

The need to provide State Government assistance for elderly people is likely to be comparatively high for Queensland.

The Queensland Government has recently abolished all death duties, and that will have 2 effects. It is interesting to recall that only yesterday the Senate was considering estate duty legislation and the point was made, based on the findings of the Asprey Committee, of the need for greater consultation between the Federal Government and the State governments to bring a greater degree of uniformity into estate duty tax. But the Asprey Committee did not recommend the abolition of the tax. Queensland apparently is pursuing this course of its own volition.

The Grants Commission will take the loss of this tax into account in determining Queensland’s tax efforts and this will have the effect of lowering future grants to the State. On top of this, the action taken by the Queensland Government will make it attractive for people in the age bracket of 65 years and over to migrate to Queensland at the end of their working lives. This will further distort the age pattern by lowering the percentage of the working age group in Queensland and increasing the demand for assistance to elderly people. This will place further demands on the Queensland Budget and will result in the people of Queensland in fact subsidising people from other States who choose to migrate to Queensland after retirement. Thus Queensland gradually will disproportionately bear the cost of providing facilities for elderly people all over Australia.

In summing up my comments on this Bill I say that it is important to recognise, as I said at the beginning of my speech, that Queensland, like many other States in this country, suffers disabilities. That is recognised, and properly so. But the people of Queensland will need to consider what will be the effects of, for example, the decision to which I have just referred on estate duty. On the surface it may appear to be a very attractive proposition. Nevertheless its effects will be felt. Obviously the Grants Commission itself will have to take account of the various factors. The Queensland Government presumably is not prepared to accept the same degree of discipline in respect of, specifically, the estate tax area, as the other States obviously are prepared to accept. The Opposition, as I have indicated, will not oppose the legislation. We have always given strong support to the Grants Commission and the role that it has played. We believe that this payment to Queensland will be of value to that State.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) and his colleagues for the support that they have given to this piece of legislation. The Leader of the Opposition has made a most interesting statement. I am certain that the Grants Commission, as usual, will read it with interest. I am sure that the factors to which he has adverted will be taken into account when it next looks at an application from Queensland for a grant for special assistance. I think I should leave it at that for the sake of the passage of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2536

STATES GRANTS (NATURE CONSERVATION) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. In essence it concerns the use of section 96 of the Constitution, in collaboration with the States, to fund the acquisition of additional wildlife habitat. I have noticed that reference was made in the second reading speech of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) to certain preliminary action in the House of Representatives. I think the Senate equally can claim that it has been a pacesetter. Without being at all boastful, I point out that in my maiden speech in August 1965 I did lean heavily on the thoughts of Stewart Udall, who was the Secretary of the Interior in the United States, as expressed in a book he wrote called The Quiet Crisis. I pay tribute to one of my former colleagues, Senator George Poyser, who stood shoulder to shoulder with me. An honourable senator who then sat on the government side of the chamber and who still sits there- Senator Ian Wood- also played a particularly noble part in the matter. By evolutionary processes nature conservation has become a political issue. We have now seen the estabishment of this principle.

Honourable senators know that I am not one who feels that once legislation is passed the millenium has been reached. In this regard I refer to the most recent figures available concerning the national average for the amount of land in each State and Territory set aside for national parks and fauna reserves, which shows it to be 1.8 per cent. Of course some States are considerably above that percentage. But it has to be borne in mind in relation to the figures that I have at my disposal that the percentage is much lower in the 2 States that are more or less under seige to mining. They are Queensland, which has a percentage of only 0.7, and Western Australia, which has a percentage of only 0.7. So time is not on the side of those- government or privatewho want to maximise existing land acquisitions. The percentage for the Northern Territory is 3.8. To sustain my point, I refer to the twentieth annual report of the Northern Territory Reserves Board. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that paragraph 1 1 of that report be incorporated in Hansard. It relates to surveys and areas contemplated by the Board. I am not going to canvass the Fox report, as the Minister would appreciate, but I do point out that a lot of this land is not within the uranium area as such. I ask for leave of the Senate to have paragraph 1 1 of this report incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The document read as follows-

  1. SURVEYS AND AREAS CONTEMPLATED
Senator MULVIHILL:

-I think it is appreciated that legislation of this type needs 100 per cent co-operation from the States. I know that at one stage during the life of the previous Government a $7m shopping list was available and that due to certain differences of opinion- my own State under a Liberal Government was at fault at the time- and due to the dithering that went on the money was not spent. I think it is significant to note that that the amount of money being made available by this Government is less than $7m. It is argued- I am not disputing the pointthat the economic climate is a factor. The point I am making is that if the principles we are accepting now had been adopted in the 1950s the acreage set aside would be much more considerable.

In talking of land acquisition for this purpose it should be borne in mind that the wetlands are very important to our environment. The Minister referred this morning to the role of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers in this regard. I would like to update our thinking on this matter. Rather than have a long oration on it, I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard an article in the London Guardian of Saturday, 17 April 1976, which deals with the history of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation convention on wetlands and which outlines the member nations. Time is not on our side, so I ask that the extract from the London Guardian of 1 7 April be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The document read as follows-

Wetlands bandwagon rolls

Birds make the world a safer place for human beings- Anthony Tucker reports

There is something profoundly peaceful about the marshlands and wetlands- where hard-pressed wildfowl lodge on migrant passage and where perhaps human beings detect some deep primeval echo.

Perhaps it was in such treeless wetlands that the first fumbling mammals came ashore to burgeon at last the rain forests: certainly it is in these flat, wet, biologically bubbling areas of the world that enormously important and subtle regulatory mechanisms operate, keeping the atmosphere proportion of oxygen controlled meticulously at safe and comfortable levels. Without the wetlands our planet, and all things in it would be at hazard.

Paradoxically it was not that hazard which this year drove a handful of countries, through UNESCO, to a new and potentially invaluable agreement on wetlands protectionthe Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat.

Wetlands- marshes, fens, peatlands and shallow estuarial areas- are all easy to ‘reclaim’ for development, and have suffered extensively from modern large scale techniques for drainage and landfill reclamation.

But it was not because the global regulatory importance of wetlands was understood that some countries decided to protect their wetlands. It was because birds, especially waterfowl, had become endangered species.

Perhaps that is unfair. Protective measures were needed because these biologically special and recreationally important areas were dwindling rapidly, and one of their primary attractions is their enormous biological activity.

The fact that part of that activity is methane production seems almost accidental but is seemingly crucial in the maintenance of atmospheric balance: as important to our general niche on this planet as the wetlands are to the wildfowl.

The Convention appears to be gathering signatories rapidly. The original eight (Britain, Bulgaria, Finland, Greece, Iran, Norway, South Africa and Sweden) are being joined by Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Pakistan, Switzerland, West Germany and Russia.

North and South America, regions of enormous wetlands importance, are seemingly tapping their heels, a situation which could have serious consequences because in those continents development pressures are high and, particularly in some South American countries such as Brazil, environmental sensitivity and responsibility demonstrably low.

The Convention is unique in that it requires the signatories to modify land use for environmental reasons. The general provisions are partly restrictive, in the sense of limiting any further loss of wetlands, and partly positive in the promotion of conservation measures. Each signatory lists all wetlands of international importance within its borders.

The Areas listed are subject to a high level of conservation and, as far as can be seen, appear now to be secure.

Those in Britain are:

ENGLAND: Bridgwater Bay, Bure Marshes, Hickling Broad and Horsey Mere, Lindisfarne, Minsmere and Walberswick, North Norfolk Coast, Ouse Washes in Norfolk and Cambridgeshire.

WALES: Cors Fechno and Dyfi.

SCOTLAND: Lock Druidibeg, Loch a ‘Machair, Loch Stilligarry, Loch Leven, Loch Lomond, Rannoch Moor.

IRELAND: Lough Neagh and Lough Beg.

Some may regret the omission of areas of enormous local importance such as the Lancashire meres, but these are not major’ in the sense intended in the convention.

The trend, in spite of continuing economic gloom and distressing political homocentricity, is increasingly toward wetlands protection. Inevitably the pressures will help to increase conservation measures in small as well as large areas.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– We can get somewhat nostalgic. I have here an extract from the Wildlife Service of 10 years ago entitled Wetland Dilemma’. It goes back to observations of the explorer John Oxley about 1817 dealing with the pristine wetlands of New South Wales. I ask that pages 6 and 7 be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The document read as follows-

Earliest original comment upon the nature of the inland streams was made by John Oxley in 1817 concerning his journey down the Lachlan River in winter (28 April- 1 August) the river apparently being on the rise while the back swamps on the lower river had been undergoing a slow fall for at least eighteen months.

June 24- Effluents and Levees: ‘The water is about 3 feet above the common level, and although the banks on both sides are certainly occasionally overflowed, there is no appearance of any fresh or flood having swollen the stream for a considerable time.

Strangford’s Plains (near Merri Merrigal) lay along our course the whole way; the river being hidden from our view by a thick border of trees. We observed several hollows and gulleys, which being connected to the river in times of flood, receive their waters from it; they were now dry; but the singularity consisted in the waters being conveyed by them over the low lands instead of their being the channels by which the waters in rainy seasons might be drained off to the river … the back lands (with the exception of the ranges) were always lower than the immediate banks of the river itself;’

June 25- Billabongs and Meanders: . . . ‘the country barren, even to the very verge of the stream which continues to run nearly west We were obliged to keep at a small distance from the river, owing to large lagoons, partly full of water, which would have otherwise interrupted our course, or rather a multitude of courses; for I never saw a stream with such opposite windings, and no one reach was a quarter of a mile long, so that it may be said to resemble a collar of SS . . .

June 27- Back-swamps: ‘After breakfast, I sent two men down the river to examine our route for tomorrow in the course of the afternoon they both returned; one who had gone a little way inland on this side, could make no progress for extensive swamps, covered with water of a depth of from 2 to 4 feet, and abounding with black swans and wild fowl. The other man was also unable to reach the plains in the other side for water supplied from a creek of the river, and forming an extensive and deep morass.’

June 28- Levees: … ‘I could in no place deviate above50 yards from the river without being bogged, and water lying in some places 1 8 inches deep, and in holes much deeper.’

June 29- Fluctuating Water Levels and Alluvial Plains: * . . (West of Hillston)* ‘Our course in the first instance was directed in such a manner as to compass the lagoons … the country bore the marks of being at some periods nearly 3 feet under water and was covered with small box trees: the country from our rejoining the river . . consisted of barren plains, extending on both sides of the stream to a considerable distance backward. The point of the bends of the river were universally wet swamps with large lagoons … I never saw a stream with so many sinuosities. The stream was in places much contracted, sandbanks stretching nearly across; its medium depth was about 8 feet.’

July 1 -‘The bottoms and sides (river) a stiff bluish clay. ‘

July 2- Fluctuating Water Levels: ‘A strong current of water must frequently pass over these plains, as is evident from the traces left by the washings of shrubs, leaves, etc . . . to the depth of 3 or 4 feet; 5 miles back from it (the river) small trees were seen, that had evidently stood from 12 to 18 inches in water . . .

It had been remarked by all, for some days past, that a putrid sour smell seemed to proceed from the plains … Mr Cunningham discovered that it proceeded from decayed plants of salsolae, which produce the same effect as decayed seaweed does in salt-marshes. ‘

July 4- Box Swamp: ‘Arabia could not boast a clearer horizon, the low acacia bushes not in any way interrupting the view. It was remarkable that there was always water where the dwarf box-trees grew . . . ‘

July 7-(Cumbung Swamp) . . . ‘before we had gone 6 miles it was evident that the channel of the stream was only the bed of a lagoon . . . Three miles farther the morasses closed upon us, and rendered all further progress impossible. The water here was stagnant . . . The marks of floods on the trunks of trees rose to the height of 4 feet 6 inches, being about 1 foot above the level of the surrounding marshes. It would appear that water is frequently stationary at that height for a considerable time . . . There were only four different kinds of plants at this terminating point of our journey, viz., the small eucalypt (black box), the long-leaved acacia (cooba), the large teagrass and a new diaeceous plant which covered the marshes, named polygonum junceum (lignum).

Dependence Upon Watersheds a Thousand Miles Away: Perhaps there is no river, the history of which is known, that presents so remarkable a termination as the present; its course . . . may fairly be calculated to run at least twelve hundred miles; during all which passage it does not receive a single stream (tributary) in addition to what it derives from its sources in the eastern mountains the only wonder is, that even those waters should cause a current at so great a distance from their source.’

Senator MULVIHILL:

-We talk about agitation. One of the architects of the principles we are debating was a very great Australian, Professor Jock Marshall of Monash University. I am sure some people read his very informative current affairs bulletin on the subject. He was a real missionary. At the behest of his widow I have written to at least 3 successive State Premiers in Western Australia about having an area of the Leopold Ranges dedicated to Jock Marshall. Maybe a future meeting of conservation ministers will decide to make that a reality.

I sound a note of warning. It arises from the Bill dealing with flood mitigation on the Namoi River. Senator Carrick was not the Minister who handled the Bill. It was one of his colleagues. There is money for acquisition but unless conservationists are appointed to various river commissions they will be heard only to a limited degree. If authorities such as the River Murray Commission or the authority responsible for flood mitigation on the Namoi River had as members people such as Dr Harry Frith, Vincent Serventy- I know he is on the Australian Heritage Commission- or even the redoubtable Milo Dunphy we could get somewhere. The Minister would know that one of the most trusted officers of the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development, Dr McMichael, at various times has been under attack from misguided people even when the Government was trying to control grazing in the Mount Kosciusko State Park. I think at the time Dr McMichael was a New South Wales officer. These are the problems. One has to be made of pretty formidable moral and physical fibre to stand up to some of the sieges one can come under.

Let me give another illustration of how we have to fight on many fronts. A former Minister for Environment, Dr Moss Cass, has referred to grants. I am happy with the recent Dandenong acquisition in Victoria. It was very important. The bird in respect of which the acquisition was made is a part of the emblem of Victoria. I do know- I can speak for Senator Jessop and others here- from the woodchip inquiry that it is not sufficient just to get the deed for the land. It has to mean something. At the moment in the Gippsland forest there is a controversy about the Leadbeater possum. It only flourishes in forest land regenerated after the disastrous 1939 fire and has a minimum habitat of 6000 hectares. The State Government may be in a dilemma. It might be possible to get co-operation about the section of the timber industry devoted to woodchips, but when it is a particular piece of habitat in question maybe something more is needed.

I am not going to get into a wrangle with Senator Carrick on my views on centralism and what he calls co-operative federalism. I will give an extreme example about this land in Gippsland. A Minister for Defence who was very adventurous could emulate the late President Roosevelt and declare the area a defence area and never use it. Then it would be protected for the Leadbeater possum. It is not only Senator Mulvihill, an exrailwayman, saying this. This can be done, according to Professor Castle, the Dean of Law at the Adelaide University. So I am fortified and buttressed by a very competent legal luminary. I am making these comments because I do not believe that just because legislation has been put through the mill something has been achieved.

I have a story applicable to the wetlands issue. In Cuba in 1920, long before Castro, an American heavyweight fighter, Jess Willard, was preparing for his historic fight against Jack Johnson. He came from the middle-west of the United States of America. He came from Kansas. As he was doing his early morning run he could see wild ducks that had come across the Caribbean from North America. One of them collapsed in exhaustion in front of him. He picked it up and stroked it. He recognised it as a duck from the State of Kansas. He said: ‘If that bird’s heart could get it from Kansas to Havana, that is the sort of spirit I will use when I meet Johnson’. Of course, it is history that he won. I do not think it is a silly story. It adds to my hope that the vision of John Oxley the explorer becomes par for the course.

I turn to the role of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. There can be genuine differences of opinion between State and Federal Ministers. We know that within our own parties we do not always have party solidarity. I believe the CSIRO Wildlife Division has a lot to contribute. I notice that Mrs Walters of Bargo in the Macarthur electorate is doing a lot at the average person’s level to expose all the myths about dingoes. I think Senator Webster and Senator Drake-Brockman at times have been connected with ministerial portfolios responsible for CSIRO reports. If there are problems- I am talking about the dingoes now, but it could apply to any other kind of wildlifethe CSIRO wildlife people could act as mediators and advisers when there is a genuine difference of opinion between State and Federal Government Ministers about a particular habitat. This is very important. I think the dingo is a typical example of the need for better understanding. I do not have the same practical experience with cattle as do some honourable senators opposite, but I think it is admitted that the pure dingo is not the threat to cattle that the cross breed is. A recent paper producer by Senator Webster’s Department, the Northern Territory Newsletter of August-September 1976, is well worth reading, particularly pages 14 and 15 dealing with the role of the dingo. We could be looking at certain ranges where the pure breed could be given protection, particularly from aerial bait dropping. I know that the New South Wales Premier has suggested in his State that it will not be the end of the world if that practice ceases.

The Minister, one of his senior officers- Mr Boden- and I had a dialogue on an Estimates Committee about the wetland areas. The Save Colong Committee and the Australian Conservation Foundation have both printed our dialogue. I think it is important enough to have page 5 of the Save Colong Bulletin incorporated in Hansard. It reports the discussion that I had with the Minister and officers about the momentous decision that has to be made ultimately on Kakadu National Park. I know that debates like this are well and truly filed by all conservation groups, so I ask permission that page 5 of the Save Colong Bulletin be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The document read as follows-

page 2541

QUESTION

RESPONSIBILITY FOR KAKADU

The Commonwealth Government has announced the formation of a National Parks and Wildlife Commission which will amalgamate the Reserves Board and The Northern Territory Wildlife section of the Department of the Northern

Territory. In Senate Estimates Committee debate on5th Oct. the following exchange occurred.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-If and when Mr Justice Fox brings down a report which prohibits mining in the area of the proposed Top End National Park, who will follow up Mr John Gorton’s proposal for that park? Will it be the new commissioner?

Mr Boden; This is one area which will be between the 2 Ministers.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Which Ministers?

Mr Boden Between the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development and the Minister for the Northern Territory.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Will they alone do it or could they be subject to pressure or resolutions from the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-They would do it themselves. It may well be that the Northern Territory Assembly will want to state its views but in the end-

Senator MULVIHILL:

– It will rest with the Australian Government Ministers?

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I said the Opposition does not oppose the Bill, but we know about all the difficulties of relations between the Commonwealth and the States. I simply hope that as time goes on the legislation will achieve all that it is hoped it will achieve. I would like to see- I think the Minister will agree with me- participation by the people. Whatever we say at the parliamentary level on conservation, we know that there are lots of volunteer groups. There are also groups which have been subsidised by government. I would like to think that some of the people in these groups could sit in as observers at meetings of the Council of Conservation Ministers. I have never believed that people should be locked out. I think of my colleague, Senator Bishop, who is pretty down to earth, when I speak of the trade union movement. There have been some very ticklish disputes. I know that paid officials have insisted that some of the rank and file should sit in at the top level discussions. I strongly suggest to the Minister that this should be permitted at future meetings of the Council of Conservation Ministers. It is not a matter of dealing with top defence secrets. I think conservation groups and members of Parliament should have the right to sit in as observers at these meetings. I think it would do a lot of good. I leave that thought with the Minister.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– in reply- I thank the Senate for its unanimous support of this measure. Senator Mulvihill has raised a number of questions. As to his last suggestion, I will certainly bring that to the attention of the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman). From recollection he also raised a query regarding the circumstances under which the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation might be brought in as a referee. I am not technically alerted to that possibility. I will seek the information and let him have it. I commend the legislation to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2542

SOFTWOOD FORESTRY AGREEMENTS BILL 1976

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

-This Bill provides for a continuation of the Softwood Forestry Agreements Act and is as a result of a report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation entitled The Operation of the Softwood Forestry Agreements Acts 1967 and 1972. 1 think conservationists were mainly concerned that if there were an expansion of pine plantations it could be at the expense of eucalypt forests. It was felt that we should have our cake and eat it. That meant of course that emphasis in relation to pine plantations would be placed on other farming land. The last information I have- I think it is reliably correct-is that the State of South Australia has no real problem as all its pine plantations are on land that was not inhabited originally by eucalypt. Some of the other States have certain difficulties.

I am going to clear the record. I spoke to Mr Gordon, the Minister for Conservation and Water Resources in New South Wales who has control of that State’s forestries. With his permission I am not referring to his Government- I point out that people who study these reports feel that the green light is being given for unlimited pine plantations. The position in New South Wales-this is where the criticism was- is that the previous State government went in for quite extensive pine plantations at Tumut. As the Minister pointed out, one cannot unscramble the omelette. He also pointed out that in one or 2 other areas- I am referring to Barrington Topsthere was no intention to have pine plantations. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a 3-page document entitled Barrington Tops Area- Forestry Practices which came to me from the Forestry Commission of New South Wales via the Minister.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The document read as follows-

page 2542

QUESTION

BARRINGTON TOPS AREA -FORESTRY PRACTICES

  1. Planting

Immediately prior to and during the currency of the first Commonwealth/State Softwoods Forestry Agreement ( 1 966-7 1 ), when it appeared that pine plantings established by the N.S.W. Government might rise to 25 000 acres (about 10 000 hectares) a year, the Forestry Commission examined the Barrington Tops area as one locality that might be suitable for a plantation project of moderate extent. As part of this examination three pilot plantings, with a total area of about 50 hectares, were established in different parts of the Tops area to test the suitability of the region for the growth of various species of pines. At the same time it became known locally that the area was being considered for pine plantings, and considerable local support for the establishment of a plantation was expressed, together with some concern from environmental groups.

With the reduced rate of planting that resulted from the second Softwoods Forestry Agreement, when the annual planting rate for N.S.W was set at 7491 ha, the Commission removed the Barrington Tops areas from its list of likely plantation sites. The reasons for this included the limited availability of land suitable for planting in the area, the desirability of concentrating planting into a few major plantation zones, and environmental considerations. The decision not to use the area for pine planting aroused a considerable volume of criticism, expressed during the 1972 Federal elections from both sides of the political fence (see copies of press clippings). Nonetheless the Forestry Commission has persisted in its attitude that it now has no plans or intentions to plant pines in the Barrington Tops area.

Whilst no pine planting is envisaged in the area, there is nonetheless some hardwood planting carried out by the Forestry Commission in the State Forests on the moist, southern foothills of the Barrington Tops (Chichester State Forest, in the Dungog Forestry Subdistrict). Some of the moister eucalypt forest stands in this area carry a very dense, viney understorey that precludes the natural regeneration of the overstorey trees except following massive disturbance, in Nature usually provided by fire. On these sites the Commission, after logging, clears away the understorey by tractor and plants seedlings of eucalypts native to the area, particularly the valuable and fast-growing Silvertop Stringybark (Eucalyptus laevopinea). By September, 1976, there were some 530 ha of eucalypt plantations in this area, and they provide one of the features of interest in the Telegherry Forest Drive through this area (see Drive brochure, attached).

  1. Clearfelling

Apart from the activities associated with the eucalypt planting programme on parts of Chichester State Forest (activities that are silviculturally dictated by the ecological nature of the forest stands involved), there is no clearfelling carried out by the Forestry Commission in the Barrington Tops areas.

In the areas that are most likely to be regarded as being on the Barrington Tops (e.g. in Barrington Tops State Forest, in the Gloucester Forestry Subdistrict), logging is carried out on a selective basis, retaining stems that have potential for a later cutting cycle and providing conditions for the establishment of further natural regeneration.

  1. Reserves for ‘Non-Forestry Use’

Presumably this query refers to the setting aside of forested areas for purposes other than timber production. In reality, of course, such reserves may still very much be ‘forestry’: a ‘non-forestry’ reserve would be, for example, an area set aside for ultimate development for farming, mining or pastoral use.

The current disposition of State-controlled land on the Barrington Tops reflects the fact that this area has been the subject of lengthy and searching land-use studies in the past As a result there have been a number of changes in land tenure over the past decade, with areas of both vacant Crown land and State Forest becoming National Park and other areas of Crown land being added to the State Forests.

The ‘Tops’ area proper is shared between the Forestry Commission and the National Parks and Wildlife Service, with areas further north in private ownership. There are two State Forests in this area:

In addition the Barrington Tops National Park covers 16 300 ha, including most of the scenic southern rim as well as part of the southern fall from the plateau.

The southern fall is also occupied in part by Chichester S.F., in two separate sections totalling 33 000 ha, while the catchment area of the Chichester Dam, controlled by the Hunter District Water Board, covers a further 1 1 800 ha, revoked from State Forest in 1 927. Further extensions to the National Park are also expected in the area south of the Devil’s Hole, on Morpey Creek, once access into areas intended for management for timber production has been assured.

Besides the 28 000 ha set aside from timber production use in National Park or Catchment Area, Flora Reserves within the State Forests have formally reserved over 1000 hectares for strictly scientific or recreational purposes, and much larger areas have been set aside less formally within the State Forests, largely for recreational use (e.g. in ‘forest parks ‘ in both sections of Chichester S.F. ).

On top of this, within the areas of State Forest intended for management primarily for timber production, significant areas will remain unlogged because of topographic, hydrological or other constraints, while experience has shown that the more accessible areas of State Forest being managed for timber production attract large numbers of people interested in using the State Forests as a recreation, for picnicking, camping, walking and other related activities. In meeting this rapidly developing use the Forestry Commission has provided appropriate recreational facilities within the State Forests and is in the process of having published a coloured, illustrated, tourist guide to the area.

At present over one quarter of the State-controlled lands on and immediately around the Barrington Tops has been permanently reserved from timber production, and a significant proportion of the State Forest in the area will not be used for timber production.

It would appear that forest uses other than timber production are already extremely well catered for in this region.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– There were some doubts. One has to choose his words when speaking on this situation so as not to mislead anyone. Some people have put forward arguments on the basis of the cost benefits. There have even been hints about trade with New Zealand and the question of utilising that country’s pine resources. I simply say to the Senate that the Opposition does not oppose the legislation but to put the record straight I seek leave to incorporate m Hansard the recommendations set out on pages 4 and 5 of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. I think they indicate perhaps all our reservations which do not go to the extent of stopping softwood forestry operations. I know that the Australian Forestry Council has several reports to be released. They will be much more specific in relation to economic viability of the future of the industry, but I think if the Government follows the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation it will get the best of the 2 worlds.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The recommendations read as follows-

  1. The Committee makes the following recommendations:

    1. Immediate consideration should be given to providing financial assistance to the States for the regeneration of hardwood areas in a way that ensures the maintenance of forest diversity and other environmental values.
    2. A thorough independent analysis of Australia’s timber should be conducted, taking into account all the variables mentioned by the Committee, and in particular the added yield of the native forest which could be gained by more effective utilisation.
    3. Australia’s undedicated forests should be examined for their timber potential on a sustained yield basis and plans drawn up for their dedication as forest reserves.
    4. It should be basic to any future Softwood Forestry Agreements Act that a thorough reassessment be made every three years to ensure that the area being planted does not exceed the real needs of the nation.
    5. Australian companies should be given greater encouragement and assistance by Government in securing long-term contracts for the supply of softwood from New Zealand.
    6. Money should not be loaned to the States for the planting of softwoods in areas where native forest is to be clearfelled, except where a thorough and stringently supervised independent research program has Been conducted into the flora and fauna of that area, as well as its soil quality, and where the planting plan allows for their protection.
    7. Additional funds should be made available to the CSIRO and other relevant bodies for research into the many areas of forestry management about which so little is known.
    8. Immediate steps should be taken to increase the funding for the comprehensive biological survey for the enure Australian continent.
    9. An immediate study should be carried out by a body such as the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to determine the economic viability of the softwood planting program, on both strict financial grounds and on the broadest possible cost/benefit grounds.
    10. Requests for assistance by private interests should be referred to the Industries Assistance Commission.
    11. All States should seriously consider the implementation of a land usage surveillance plan similar to the Land Conservation Council of Victoria.
    12. An increasing proportion of the finance loaned to the States should be dedicated to the purchase of land already cleared for other marginal pursuits.
    13. Financial assistance should continue to be made available to owners of agricultural holdings for the planting of small woodlots on their properties.
    14. Plans for the plantation of exotic softwoods should be made available for public scrutiny. Full consultation and discussions should be held with interested parties before they are implemented.
    15. Greater encouragement should be given by the Australian Government for the dedication of more extensive areas of Australian native forests as National Parks.
    16. The next Softwood Forestry Agreements legislation should cover a period of ten years, with interest accruing from the commencement of the loan, and with deferment of repayments of instalments of principal and interest for fifteen years.
    17. Stringent conditions should be imposed upon the lending of Federal money to ensure that forestry management procedures designed to protect the environment are strictly observed.
Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I thank Senator Mulvihill and his colleagues for their support of this Bill. I think it fair to say that every time Senator Mulvihill speaks on these issues we listen to him with a great deal of interest because this is a subject, together with the other matters concerning wildlife or the environment, in which he takes an enormous personal interest

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2544

OMBUDSMAN BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 September, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I notice that in his second reading speech the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) said:

During the passage through the House of Representatives of the Bill introduced by the Labor Government the then Opposition in that place secured a number of important amendments, so that the Bill that lapsed was one having the support of both sides of the House.

I do not have a legal background. There may be finer points which people more legally competent who follow me may refer to but we know that in New Zealand there is an ombudsman.

We also know that the Scandinavian countriesoften regarded as the garden lands of democracy- have had an ombudsman for a long time. One of the dangers in having an ombudsman is in determining whether he is the perfect person for that position. Most parliamentarians can always cite instances where their own advocacy has remedied a wrong. We also know that at times when people make certain submissions to government departments the difficulty is that they are often mute on their strong points but hammer the weak points. They do not do justice to the case. I think very often when one ventilates a matter to a Minister or Department one is able to rectify a wrong because of a certain amount of maturity that one obtains in the national Parliament. I think that is summed up by a slogan which is on the wall of the office of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I know that the poster has a purple background. I cannot paraphrase very well what it says, but it says, in effect, whether or not you are paranoid people can still be out to get you.

The point I am getting at is that it is very hard to be objective when faced with modern life and its stresses. I have known people at all sorts of levels make excuses if they were not picked in the local cricket team. They never admit that they were not good enough. They will give some other reason for not being selected. On the other hand, it is equally true that in a time of economic stress some- I use the word ‘some’ advisedly- public servants, even those who deal with the public at a counter, can get a little autocratic and a bit abrupt. In that way a miscarriage of justice can occur. It is in that particular area that I wonder just what is the role of the ombudsman. I notice that in this legislation there will be certain areas in which he will be virtually off limits. I do not think anybody would oppose the principle of the legislation. As is the case in a lot of other areas it depends on the capacity of individuals to get all the facts. Secondly, situations will arise when there will be gripes about Party politics entering into it. We have the classic situation in my State of New South Wales where the Premier is trying to rationalise the milk zones. I suppose we could argue about whether the rights of the person who obtained the original licence for a milk quota should be submerged for the benefit of the State. That involves the question of the common good. It is a very difficult area. I suppose it is an area on which the legal profession has spent most of its working life.

The Opposition will certainly watch with interest the overall outcome of the legislation.

However, I want to deal more with what I believe is not said in the Bill. The second reading speech states:

The Attorney-General may, under clause 9, give the Ombudsman a certificate that disclosure to the Ombudsman of certain information would be contrary to the public interest . . .

The question of public interest is a very difficult one. I do not know of any government in this world, irrespective of its ideology, which has not at times been bogged down on the question of national security. As recently as several weeks ago the British Labour Government had a problem with an ex-agent of the Central Intelligence Agency. He was a man who had done all right through publishing a few books. The problem was the extent to which he should be allowed to say certain things.

I want to deal with the positive rather than the negative aspects of the Bill. The thing that has been bugging me over the last 6 months or perhaps a little longer is how, at a time when we are not at war, we deal with citizenship applications and with applications for tourist visas from people who are known to have radical attitudes. I want to be charitable to the Government. I notice that the Government is exercising passport control and is refusing to grant passports to some people for good reason. I refer to one or two people from at least one organisation with which Mr Justice Murphy of the High Court had problems. I know of another case of a chap who got into a punch up in a bar in Manila. He may have had gambling operations, and the granting of his passport was held up too. That is an area which has no relevance to passport control. As honourable senators would know, I am not going to quarrel with the Minister if he makes a certain decision, because I have advocated for a long while that we, like Canada, should have a special tribunal to deal with the problems of people going to and from a country. I would like some confirmation about whether passport control is involved in this legislation. Let me say that I do not think that any government can give an open cheque. A person who is making a few dollars from peddling narcotics should not be given an Australian passport so that he can profiteer and degrade mankind here. That is the first point I want to make.

I know that people can be the victims of a miscarriage of justice. I shall give a simple illustration of that. Some years ago I visited a foreign ship in Sydney. It was an Italian ship. I had with me a couple of Yugoslavs who spoke Italian. They were from Slovenia. A legitimate Customs raid was carried out looking for contraband tobacco. I think Senator Lajovic would have a shrewd idea of the family about which I am talking. Because the Yugoslavs spoke to the Italians in Italian they were lumbered too. They were kept in custody for 6 or 8 hours. Eventually I was able to have them released. I was not after the head of the customs officer responsible. I suppose like the average Australian he was not able to tell the difference between an Italian and a Yugoslav. It is in a case such as that, I suppose, that these chaps could have had the right to some form of monetary redress. I repeat that perhaps an ombudsman should be watching the Customs authorities. It is not a very easy job. I suppose it is very difficult if sometimes they have got to move in on genuine narcotics peddlers.

A case which involved a former Minister of the Labor Government concerned a certain nonAustralian citizen who was deported for being a leading narcotics agent in Darwin. A number of people were taken to see the then Minister, Mr Clyde Cameron. The defence of the person involved was that the Customs people had used a female decoy. It is very difficult to know how far decoys should be used in the smashing of narcotics rings. In the case in point, and in view of the man’s record, I think what the then Minister, Clyde Cameron, did was right. They are some of the areas in which we think the ombudsman should operate.

I want to give a much more serious example. In the last 6 months I have been made aware of 2 British nationals who sought Australian citizenship. Honourable senators would know from the brochure distributed by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr MacKellar, that until 30 November there was a transition period during which British citizens could obtain Australian citizenship within 12 months of coming to this country. Now of course they have got to wait for 2 years and 9 months like everybody else. I am not arguing that point. The 2 cases that have surfaced in the last few months are rather amazing. One involves Mr L. I have already spoken to the Minister about him. He is a member of the Seamen’s Union of Australia. He served in the British Army in World War II and he was at Dunkirk when he was 18 years old. He was highly decorated. He is a member of the Socialist Party of Australia. Let us be realistic about the situation: I would like to feel that any person, whether he be a member of the SPA or whether he be a member of another group, should not be denied citizenship because of his views. The man I am talking about was in Canberra and he was gaoled in Uraguay. Senator

Knight knows the person about whom I am talking. If such a person indulges in physical upheavals and uses bombs or knives or even indulges in standover bashing with fists and the like, that is a different kettle of fish. As yet I have not received an answer from Mr MacKellar’s office about Mr L.

The other person was another Englishman with an impressive war record. He is also a member of a left wing party. All I am asking for is even handedness. If the Government were to say to me that henceforth any person in a fascist group on the far Left who is proved to have engaged in physical upheaval will not be granted citizenship, I would agree with that. I thank the President for the tolerance he has shown to me during the course of my remarks. The point I am making, and I have made it before, is that in looking at a possible intrigue or spy ring one does not necessarily look only at people’s politics. Some people may have a hangup about society and they may want to get even.

I would like to know, not necessarily from the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack), whether we have reached the situation now of deciding that people who have a record in Europe of belonging to radical parties to the Left of the socialists will find it hard to be granted citizenship if they are already in this country or will be refused completely if they apply to come here on a tourist visa. I include that last element because honourable senators will know that on 12 October I raised the case of an Italian coming to this country only as a tourist. There is no question of him becoming destitute here. He belongs to those Italians who have made good and who live in the northern suburbs. They live in the electorate of Bradfield; they do not live where I do over with the proletariat. So there is no fear of that chap being on the beach as it were. I questioned Senator Guilfoyle ‘s staff about the delay in that case. They are completely blameless. Senator Wheeldon knows better than I do the European party to which he belongs. It is one of the parties to the left of Saragat in Italy. This person has had rows with the authorities, and we are having 3 looks at him. I will not accept the proposition that somebody who was a left wing councillor in the north of Italy is necessarily going to lead a protest march of dissatisfied people to Canberra.

I do not expect direct answers in this area. But I say to the Minister that the most important rights that a person has today are the right to hold a passport and the right to obtain citizenship. I have had access to Ministers and know that there are people who have not been given citizenship. When we were in government we would not give citizenship to them and the present Government would not give it to them. I am not arguing about individual cases. I should like to know whether protection in this area will be afforded under this Ombudsman BUI. It is essential that the Government expedite an implementation of the findings of Mr Justice Hope. I do not say this merely as a carping critic. With my colleague Senator James McClelland, who I think was then the Minister, I sat on a very prestigious committee where we were given some idea of the ebb and flow of people seeking citizenship. One group would say: ‘He is no good. He should not be a citizen’ and others would have a different view.

When we talk about people having radical views, and even views that are far to the right, the point to consider is whether or not they content themselves with the use of lung power or do something else. The Minister would appreciate this. He would know that the Committee for Democracy in Greece came before the Committee on which I sat. What they said about the military junta in Greece was nobody’s business. The people on that committee had never gone to embassies and had never been involved in a brawl. They had only carried banners. That is the criterion I would apply. I notice that there is in the chamber an honourable senator more competent than I to speak to this Bill. My comments have been merely an expression of a workshop floor attitude. Having presented submissions to the Mr Justice Hope and having had a long interview with him, I say strongly to the Minister that, whatever Mr Justice Hope has in mind and conveys to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), if my submissions are not included in his report the Government will expedite the appeal system which applies in Canada. The right to citizenship is basic. A person without it may never get a chance at job opportunities. I think, equally, that people are entitled to know why they have not been granted a passport. If the Ombudsman can deal with that matter, well and good; if not, we should be told what the alternatives are.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I rise to support this Bill with a great deal of enthusiasm and perhaps with less worry than Senator Mulvihill has as to the way in which it is likely to operate. I rise with enthusiasm because I have advocated for the last 15 years that there should be an ombudsman for Australia and in the States. I can claim that in the State of Victoria I was responsible for the first resolution to persuade the Victorian Liberal Party that we should have an ombudsman. Victoria was the first State to achieve this. We had a certain Premier in VictoriaSir Henry Bolte- who had a considerable strength of mind and a feeling that it was not necessary to have anyone but politicians to look after the problems of citizens. He did not feel that there was any need for an ombudsman. Ultimately, of course, with a change of Premier, we achieved in Victoria and in all the mainland States the operation of an ombudsman. I think he is operating very effectively in those States.

The problem which Senator Mulvihill first advanced was that he felt there could be some difficulty encountered by an individual in getting the facts and in doing all the work necessary. He will appreciate that this is a problem for the Federal ombudsman when he is dealing with many cases and that he will need staff with competence. I shall say something later about the importance of the individual who is chosen, even though much of the work will have to be done through intermediaries in regard to the actual detail of working on complaints. I do not think Party politics needs to be something that causes an ombudsman to be ineffective. I do not think this has happened in places where there are ombudsmen. We have examples of ombudsmen who have operated now for over 100 years in Scandinavian countries. In New Zealand, for the first time in the common law countries, an ombudsman was successfully appointed in 1962. He is Sir Guy Powles who perhaps has been the most outstanding success as an ombudsman in the English speaking world. He is a man who was well chosen. I stress this point because I think it is very important that, when this Bill is passed, as assuredly it will be, the person who is appointed first to take this position is one with the utmost competence to fulfil the role.

It is a very happy day that Parties on both sides of the chamber are supporting this Bill. I remember that this Bill has taken a long time to get to this chamber. Last year, on that rather fateful day of 1 1 November, a Labor Ombudsman Bill was the second piece of legislation on the list. I was ready to open the debate for the then Opposition. I am happier to be opening the debate for the Government today in support of a Bill which is, in all essence, similar to that Bill of last year, but which has some improvements in it. This matter has not been a Party political matter over the last few years. The initial reports of committees which have called for the appointment of an ombudsman- the Kerr Committee and in particular the Bland Committee in 1973- found the necessity for having ombudsmen in the Commonwealth of Australia. Of course, since that time, the endeavour, though slow, on both sides of the chamber has been to bring this into effect. I believe that not only do we need an ombudsman in the States, but more than anywhere we need an ombudsman in the Commonwealth of Australia where we are diverse, where the Commonwealth Government in Canberra is a long way from the major cities and where it is obviously essential that matters of maladministration, where they occur, are brought to the attention of someone who operates in the way that an ombudsman does.

Let us realise that of course this measure is only one measure and that it operates with something else. In the last few years we created the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That is a much more formal body. It has hearings and deals with the decisions of Ministers and officials. It operates in a somewhat different way from that in which an ombudsman normally operates. We see under this legislation the complementary measure, the ombudsman who acts informally. He does not have the power to make decisions to change things, but he is able to investigate actions relating to matters of administration taken by a department or by a prescribed authority. With the powers prescribed for him in this Bill he is able to go to departments and to officials to find out the facts. He can undertake an investigation either by waiting on a complaint by a person or by going ahead on his own initiative and investigating something. There is this informality. This is the feature of ombudsman throughout those parts of the world which have ombudsmen. I think this is one of the most valuable parts of the institution.

Let us look at last year’s Bill and at this year’s Bill. I shall spend a short time dealing with the structure of the present Bill. Even though there has been a delay, the Bill, as it is now, has a number of changes in it which are useful. I shall say something later about one or two things which I regret are not in the Bill but which I hope will be in it at some time in the future. This Bill contains really substantial improvements on the Bill of last year. There has been clarity as to the persons who might be exercising statutory powers and functions. Under the previous Bill there were possibilities of a very wide operation of persons, like company liquidators, being incorporated within the terms and reference of the legislation. That would not have been desirable. Also, under the previous Bill there was doubt as to whether the ombudsman could take action in respect of matters which occurred before or after the commencement of the Act. I think it would be highly undesirable if persons were denied the opportunity of going to the ombudsman merely because the matter arose before the Bill came into operation. There are provisions in relation to complaints where an ombudsman declines to investigate. He must be satisfied that he is not causing undue hardship. There are, as I say, a number of matters in this Bill which show some improvement. This is one of the advantages of delay, even though we may regret that delay.

Under this Bill important significance is given to the fact that the ombudsman has to operate in a Federal context. He has to act in such a way that he can deal effectively with matters of Commonwealth administration in the States and in the Territories. The Bill provides that 2 deputy ombudsmen- one for the Australian Capital Territory and one for the Northern Territory- are to be appointed. In regard to the States, I think it is important that there should be personal application as far as possible by the ombudsman in giving his attention to these matters of maladministration that might occur, even though he may have to travel a lot to keep them within his own purview. I should like to refer briefly to a paper written in 1975 by Mr Julian Disney of the Law Faculty of the University of New South Wales. In relation to this problem he said:

It will be fatal if the State officers of the Australian Ombudsman become mere receivers of complaints for transmission to the head office. A great measure of State autonomy will be essential to preserve the speed, informality and personal element which are so fundamental to the successful operation of the Ombudsman concept. Overall control from Canberra will be necessary, especially to ensure uniformity and to conduct top-level negotiation with Ministers and public servants, but there should be a senior officer ‘on the ground’ with extensive powers and commensurate status. It would be preferable to have a ‘Chief Australian Ombudsman’, with an ‘Australian Ombudsman* for each State or Territory. It may be that, at least in some States, the State Ombudsman should act also as Australian Ombudsman for that State.

Perhaps his latter words are not relevant because divisions have been made as to the names of the bodies concerned but obviously it is essential that there should be co-operation between the Federal and State ombudsmen so that people with complaints who go to the wrong body are facilitated in going to the right person to achieve justice. On this point I should like to refer to remarks which were made some years ago by Professor Geoffrey Sawer in his book Ombudsman. This was written in 1958, nonetheless it was an excellent review at that time of the concept of the Ombudsman operating then in various parts of the world. He said:

Assuming that eventually there were a number of these officers, federal and State, it would be easy for them to establish informal contacts and to refer to each other cases which fell within the other’s sphere of administration, or to make joint inquiries where administration was joint.

I hope that in carrying out his work the Ombudsman will co-operate with his State colleagues to achieve justice for people who have a problem with administration even if they are not certain whether it is a State or Federal matter.

A great number of factors relate to this Bill. Senator Mulvihill said that there is a problem in relation to clause 9 of the Bill as it now stands. This means that certain things can be denied to the Ombudsman and that the Attorney-General can furnish to the Ombudsman a certificate saying that he shall not investigate a particular area because of its relation to security, defence, international relations or certain other matters, including the deliberations of the Cabinet. This provision could impose a considerable restriction if it were misused. It is significant that in this Bill, compared with the legislation prepared by the previous Government, the Attorney-General has to make decisions about these matters and not just any Minister. This means that there will be judicious and careful scrutiny to ensure that this restriction on the ombudsman’s power will not be over used. One also notices the considerable power which the ombudsman will have. His power is not a power to change things. It is not a political power. It is not a power to make decisions that order officials to do something different if they have erred in their actions. It is a significant power. The ombudsman can report to a department and ask it to take action. If he is not satisfied he can ask a Minister to take action. He can report to the Prime Minister or to the Parliament. Ombudsmen in other jurisdictions have found that publicity is adequate to enable them to bring to attention matters in which a department is slow or loath to answer or carry out proper redress for a citizen. The Ombudsman will have powers to ensure that complaints which come before him from prisoners will not be interfered with by prison authorities so that he will be able to deal with them. That is an important clause in the Bill.

It is important to get the ombudsman into operation. We may well find then that changes are necessary. This has happened in other States and other jurisdictions. In Victoria it is now proposed to give the Ombudsman jurisdiction in local government matters. When the Ombudsman is seen to be effective in the fields in which he has acted he may then be given by Parliament further fields of activities and further powers. Above all, the importance of and the criteria for his appointment ought to be taken into account.

The Ombudsman should be acceptable to members on both sides of the Parliament. He should not in any way be partisan. Five of these criteria for consideration in the appointment of an ombudsman were mentioned in an interesting way last year by Mr Howard, who is now the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. The first is that he should be independent. Secondly, he should be impartial. Thirdly, he should have a thorough understanding of government. Fourthly, he should be accessible to people. Fifthly, he should have powers to recommend and publicise and, of course, an ability to do these things. These matters involve great consideration of the personality of the person who is to be appointed. It means that he does not need to be a lawyer. He does not need to have worked in the Public Service. However, he needs to have a fair familiarity with those areas.

Whilst I am very happy that this Bill is now before the Senate and trust that it will come into early operation I want to refer to 2 matters. I think there are 2 deficiencies in the Bill which I hope will be cured at some later stage. For the record, I wish to set them out. Under clause 5 of the Bill one of the main exclusions from the power of the ombudsman, perhaps the main one, is that he is not authorised to investigate action taken by a Minister. This has been a matter of controversy. Different views have been taken by different parties in the cause of the legislation. I notice that whereas last year the Labor Party might have taken a different view, apparently it is now happy with this restriction on the Ombudsman. I think that this is a matter to be regretted. I draw attention to paragraphs 92 and 94 of the report in 1973 of the Bland Committee which is known as the Committee on Administrative Discretions. It states:

If one starts from the premise that policy decisions of Ministers should not be examinable, then, subject to the problem of determining whether a decision is one of policy or of administration only, the United Kingdom Act alone has any basis in logic. It provides that administrative decisions whether of a Minister or an official are examinable. It excludes decisions of Cabinet presumably as likely to be directed to policy.

The report goes on:

If no decisions of Ministers are to be examinable, a power to make judgments about, and to recommend changes in, legislation fits oddly. We will return to this. And, having regard to the argument above, it is equally odd to make any recommendations to Ministers examinable.

It is strange that if, under this Bill, an ombudsman may investigate recommendations to Ministers he cannot investigate an actual decision made by a Minister. It is strange that when Ministers are often given administrative decisions to make- not matters of policy but matters of administration- they cannot be examined by the Ombudsman. When this matter was being debated last year in the House of Representatives, Mr Ellicott, who was then a member of the Opposition, in relation to this clause said:

I want to suggest to the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) that, having in mind the history of discretions under Commonwealth law and the fact that many administrative discretions are given to Ministers, there is a strong case for doing one of 2 things: Either including amongst those discretions which the Ombudsman can look at, certain of the discretions of Ministers that are administrative, or alternatively, carrying out a thorough investigation of the Commonwealth law in order to sort out from the discretions of Ministers those which are matters of policy and those which are matters of administration.

From reading the record of the debate in the other place, I believe that Mr Ellicott, as Attorney-General, certainly is adopting the second of those courses. He certainly is trying to sort out the distinction between these particular discretions. The fewer of them that remain as acts of Ministers which are denied the Ombudsman’s scrutiny the better. I regret that those arguments have not led us to decide at this stage to include such administrative acts of Ministers within the power of the Ombudsman to scrutinise. I conclude by saying that when Mr Disney, whom I mentioned before, wrote an article in 1974 entitled ‘Ombudsmen in Australia’ he had this to say:

The Federal Government’s proposals have not yet been released, but it seems that they will be even more restrictive than the States in relation to jurisdiction over Ministers (removing most opportunity to comment indirectly on their decisions), will adopt a general criterion narrower than wrong’, and will give the Government extensive power to exclude the Ombudsman from investigating any conduct which it certifies as relating to Australia’s security, international relations or defence.

He and other people have taken that view when writing on this issue. I think it is a pity that this legislation does not embrace that view. I hope that at some time in the future, when we have established the office of ombudsman and we have seen that person working effectively in this jurisdiction, further consideration will be given to actions by a Minister which are excluded from the jurisdiction of the ombudsman.

Also, I think it is unfortunate that the suggestion which has been made from time to time and which my Party proposed last year as an amendmentthat the ombudsman though appointed by the Governor-General should not be so appointed until his appointment had been approved by both Houses- has not met with the approval of the Government and is not contained in the Bill. I think that, after all, an ombudsman is a parliament man. I think he ought particularly to be the preserve of the Parliament, to which he reports. He should not just be someone who is appointed by the Governor-General but someone who, in fact, has a particular responsibility to the Parliament. This may be a matter of form, but I have no doubt that the appointment of an ombudsman will always be discussed between Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition. It is terribly important that the appointment of an ombudsman should not lead to political argument, whereby the matter was canvassed in the Parliament. I assume that the introduction of such a procedure will be explored. I think it is a shame that we have not proceeded with what was proposed last year, namely, that the Ombudsman should be approved of by both Houses of Parliament before he actually took up his role of office. I put those 2 matters forward in the hope that in due course they will be reconsidered.

I conclude by saying that I think that the position of ombudsman is a terribly important position. A great deal of care will be required in choosing the occupant of the position. I believe that in the early years of the operation of the office it will be a matter of trial and error and of a lot of things being done that may lead subsequently to an amendment of the legislation. I think that the Ombudsman will have the extremely important job of balancing the rights of big government, which exists today, with those terribly important individual rights that can so easily be swamped in the huge machinations of government.

It may be that very often only 1 5 per cent or 1 8 per cent or so of complaints made to the Ombudsman are found to be justified- that most complaints are found not to be justified. That does not mean in any way that the ombudsman is not doing a useful job. He will be doing 2 things. He will be satisfying the public that in most cases proper administration has been performed. He will be able to say to the person who complains that his cause has been investigated and has been shown not to be a proper complaint that needs action. But in some cases faults do occur; mistakes are made by members of the Administration, by clerks and by all kinds of people all the way down the system. I think the Ombudsman will be a most valuable addition to the armoury of government and of civil liberties in this country.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

-In supporting this Bill, which establishes the office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, I join with the 2 previous speakers. In fact; I share the enthusiasm indicated by Senator Missen when he opened his remarks in support of this Bill. Such an office exists in many countries throughout the world. Most honourable senators would be aware that such an office first emerged in the Scandinavian countries last century. The word, however, has its origin in Germanic law, I believe, even though it later became somewhat different when it was adapted for the use that it has now. It took a long time for some countries to see that the role of the ombudsman was an excellent role in government. New Zealand saw that before any of us did in Australia, in that in 1962 an ombudsman was appointed there. However, no Australian States appointed an ombudsman in the 1960s. It was not until the 1970s that such an appointment was made.

As the previous speaker mentioned, all the mainland States now have such an office. The first State to appoint an ombudsman was Western Australia, where an ombudsman was appointed in 1972 under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act. In fact, of the 5 States that now have an ombudsman or a person in an office of such a nature, 2 States- South Australia and Queensland- have appointed them under a Parliamentary Commissioner Act and the other 3 States have appointed them under an Ombudsman Act. The second State to make such an appointment was South Australia, again in 1 972. This was followed in 1973 by Victoria, in 1974 by Queensland, and in 1975 by New South Wales.

Through my experience as a parliamentary representative I have seen a need for a reviewing process of some kind. This office will provide just one of the reviewing processes available to people throughout Australia. I am sure that other honourable senators would have had different experiences from mine with regard to reviewing processes needed in the special areas in which they have interest. My principal interest has permitted me on a number of occasions to experience a reviewing process in my dealings with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. This happens because of the large number of people I meet who have problems in this direction and who eventually go before the Tribunal to have what they believe to be a wrong corrected.

It is interesting to note that a large number of appeals go through this Tribunal. I have been given some figures for certain quarters of this year which show the magnitude of the number of people who feel that they have been wronged in this particular area. I shall take some of the figures from one quarter as an illustration. For the first quarter of this year in New South Wales a total of 405 people appealed to the Social

Security Appeals Tribunal in respect of the payment of just one benefit, that is, the unemployment benefit. Not all of those appeals were decided upon in that quarter, but 23 1 appeals were finalised in that quarter, of which 53 appeals were upheld. This means that about 23 per cent of the people who actually went before that Tribunal were found to have been wronged and had their appeals upheld. Other States do not have the same success rate. South Australia for the same quarter had 147 appeals in respect of unemployment benefits finalised, of which 32 appeals were upheld, representing a 2 1 per cent success rate, if one may use that term. Other States had somewhat lower rates of success.

The point I make is that in respect of just one type of appeal in one quarter of this year a great number of people have considered they were wronged and have been able to go to the Tribunal to see whether they could have that wrong remedied. From my experience I candidly still disagree with some of the decisions that have been made. The way I read clause 5 (2) of the Bill suggests to me that in extreme cases one perhaps then could refer such a case to the ombudsman if it was thought that a wrong decision had still been done.

I suppose that parliamentary representatives are in some respects ombudsmen for their constituents. In this chamber we would receive fewer representations of this nature from constituents, except perhaps for the senators from the Territories, than do members of the House of Representatives who have much closer contact with their constituents than the majority of honourable senators do. Nevertheless, we in this chamber sometimes act in the role of local ombudsmen. Certainly the role that people in the parliaments adopt can never be as effective as that of an ombudsman whose office is set up by an act of this Parliament, but the number of cases we see suggests to me that there is a danger that once the ombudsman is appointed his office will become clogged with cases if the cases which are referred to him have not had a great deal of work done on them beforehand. I believe that if many cases that are referred to an ombudsman were pursued more fully by the complainant they could be quite easily rectified and would not have to go to the ombudsman at all. His office will be an important one and I would not like to see it clogged with cases before all other avenues have been tried.

Senator Missen mentioned that he thought there should be extreme care taken in the appointment of the ombudsman and I share that concern. He said that there were 5 qualities that perhaps an ombudsman should have. I noted some of them; I think independence and impartiality were two. But I think that the honourable senator should have added that the ombudsman must not only have those 5 qualities but also must be seen to have them not only by people in the Parliament but also by people in the community who would then know that this person was of such a high quality that they could have faith in the ombudsman who had been appointed to be their guardian in respect of certain administrative decisions.

I favour the idea that the ombudsman should be appointed with the general agreement of both Houses of the Parliament although that provision is not part of the Bill. Clause 21 (1) provides that he is to be appointed by the GovernorGeneral. However, if for certain reasons the ombudsman is to be removed from his post he can be removed only by a resolution of both Houses of the Parliament. I am not suggesting that we change the Bill at this stage but it seems to me that this aspect could be looked at in the future. If both Houses of the Parliament have to be consulted in that instance perhaps we could also see that when the ombudsman is appointed both Houses of the Parliament are consulted. I reiterate that I think the office is so important that great care will have to be taken in the appointment of an ombudsman.

This Bill will give added protection to the individual. Each person in Australia is faced, perhaps not daily but quite often, with a wide variety of administrative decisions which affect his life. Usually these administrative decisions do not cause any undue worry but at some stage they do for some people when they are placed in this situation and some people do not have any idea of the remedies that are available to them. In a wide variety of cases there will not be any need for a person to go to the ombudsman but the office will be there and it will be available to people who believe they have been wronged by some administrative decision and they will be able to take that matter to the ombudsman to be rectified. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I support this legislation with continued enthusiasm. I say ‘continued enthusiasm’ because it was some 12 years ago that I first supported a move for an ombudsman in Australia. A lot of people in the Federal house do not know that the first move for an ombudsman in Australia took place in the Northern Territory Legislative Council in 1965. This was some 2 to 3 years after the ombudsman was appointed in New Zealand. In those days the people of the Northern Territory had very little say on matters affecting the Northern Territory. They felt aggrieved to such a degree that between 1966 and 1972 there were 6 Bills passed by that minor legislature to set up an investigation of administrative actions- an ombudsman- and every one of those Bills was not assented to by the Governor-General. In those days the people of the Territory felt that they had little say in their own affairs. They were completely under the domination of the Commonwealth departments and the Federal government. So as a way of overcoming their problem they set up a committee by a resolution of the Legislative Council to investigate administrative actions. I remember that in the 1960s I was a member of that committee.

However, the Federal government in those days did not agree with the principle of an ombudsman for the Northern Territory and it took out an order to stop these 5 Legislative Councillors from operating as an administrative action committee. What we did after this motion was passed by the Legislative Council was advertise to the people of the Northern Territory that if they had a problem all they had to do was see this committee and it would take up the matter. So the Federal government saw fit to make an order for this committee of five to desist. Then of course it had to find the 5 people in the Northern Territory which consists of over half a million square miles. I well remember that over a fortnight the police endeavoured to find the people and had some tremendous difficulty doing so. I think I was the final one to be given this order.

We had to make an arrangement by phone to meet so that they could serve the order on me. I take the part of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in so many things, but a lot of people here do not realise the thought and the forward thinking which has occurred over the years in the Territory. They were the first to introduce land rights, as I have mentioned, although Federal action froze the initial moves. In this case, when the Assembly tried to appoint an ombudsman for the Northern Territory, that was also refused. Probably the first man in Australiaand I should like to have his name recorded in the Federal Hansard- to take any concrete action in relation to the appointment of an ombudsman was a person called Mr Harold Brennan, MLC. Even today many people know Tiger’ Brennan, the man with the cigar and the tiger-hunting hat, a very fierce man, a man who fought for the small people whom he represented in his electorate in the Northern Territory. In those days, and I am speaking of 1965, he was thinking the sorts of things which people are thinking today. In the Northern Territory Legislative Council Hansard of 8 March 1966, Mr Brennan said, and I think this indicates his thinking:

Now, Mr President, I live to fight another day in the same battle all over again for the right of everyone, no matter who he may be, to get a fair go and just treatment from the government and the administration of the day. We know the government in the Territory, more so than in other parts of Australia, is growing more complex from day to day. Governments are becoming more involved in private undertakings. The intrusion of Canberra into local government and into the lives and affairs of the ordinary citizen is multiplying, and will keep on doing so unless it stifles itself.

These intrusions are meant primarily for the benefit of the country as a whole, but in very many instances that is not the case. The nature of the intrusion into the life of the ordinary man by Canberra and local government is such that all sorts of positions are created that greatly affect the lives of the average, common man.

This was very well described by the Right Hon. Lord Shawcrofts before the British section of the International Commission of Jurists in 1 96 1 , when he said-

With the existence of a great bureaucracy there are inevitably occasions, not insignificant in number, when through error or indifference injustice is done, or appears to be done.

The man of substance can deal with these situations. He is near to the establishment. He enjoys the status or possesses the influence which will ensure him the ear of those in authority. He can afford to purchase such legal remedies as may be available. He knows his way around. But too often the little man, the ordinary humble citizen, is incapable of asserting himself.’

These, Mr President, are the people I am worried about. These are the people whose cause I am espousing- the little man, the ordinary humble citizen- and when I say man, you can interpose woman wherever applicable. Injustices, whether real or imaginary, must be undone. Every effort must be made to undo any imaginary injustice. Every com- plaint must be looked into to see if it is legitimate or not. If l egitimate, it must be attended to and justice must be done. Under the existing system, which has controlled the lives of Territorians since time immemorial, we have had no means of doing that.

It is with continuing enthusiasm that I support this legislation in a different arena. The first attempt in Australia to introduce an ombudsman was in the Northern Territory, but because it was a territorial situation I believe there would have been difficulties and they could not have been sure of the extent to which the ombudsman could relate to the actions of the Commonwealth Public Service under a Territory Ordinance. The Bill before the Senate gives a complete right of examination of all actions of public servants, Commonwealth and Territory, and all statutory bodies, Commonwealth or Territory. This Bill provides for an ombudsman and 2 deputy ombudsmen, and I and most people in the Territory believe that it is a very acceptable situation.

The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack), who introduced the legislation, recognises that the Territory is now developing and that at some time in the future, in perhaps 4, 5 or 6 years, the Territory will become a State. The transfer of powers will commence on 1 January, and the Territory is climbing the ladder of responsibility. I believe that this Bill will have to be amended when the Territory finally becomes a State. As a State it will be able to pass legislation in its own right, as do the other States of Australia, and provide an ombudsman for whatever the Northern Territory is called when it becomes a State.

Over the last month I have considered the Bill which is now before the Senate and which has considerable ramifications for the Northern Territory, and I have approached the Government with a request that 2 amendments should be made to the Bill. The first amendment relates to clause 3(1), where the word ‘Department’ is defined. The definition excludes the Commonwealth Departments of the Houses of Parliament, and I believe that paragraph (b) of that definition should be amended to exclude from the Territory Public Service the Department of the Legislative Assembly, because the Assembly is a parliament. The Government has agreed to that amendment and in a letter to me the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) stated:

The Government will agree to an amendment to the effect that the Department of the Legislative Assembly in the Northern Territory Public Service will be excluded from the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

At a suitable time during the Committee stage I will move that amendment.

The second amendment which I proposed has not received sufficient support. It related to clause 18 (5), which provides that the Ombudsman may forward to the Speaker for tabling in the Legislative Assembly a copy of the report sent to the Minister on consideration of a Territory matter. I put forward that the word ‘may’ should be amended to ‘shall’, thus ensuring that the Assembly is made aware of all matters in the Territory which were not rectified and which require reporting to the Minister. However, while the Government is prepared to accept my first amendment, which I think is a reasonable one and which I hope receives the support of the Senate, it has indicated that the amendment to clause 18 (5) is not acceptable. It was stated that clause 17 deals with an analogous situation and enables the Ombudsman to exercise his discretion in relation to the reports he makes. Under clause 1 7 he still has to inform the Prime Minister of a situation in which adequate or appropriate corrective action was not taken. Similarly, under sub-clause 18 (5) he may decide to report a matter to the Minister for the Northern Territory. That approach is consistent with the broad range of discretions given to the ombudsman through this Bill. In view of that explanation, I will not continue with my proposed amendment.

I support the legislation, I believe that it is extremely desirable for the people of the Northern Territory because they are still in a somewhat difficult situation. Whilst they have a Legislative Assembly, at the moment it has no powers. The people of the Territory come under the control of the Federal Government to a degree, and particularly under the control of Federal departments, which I believe are not very close to the people. Because of this there are many instances of individuals developing the feeling in their minds that they have been wronged. Perhaps they have; perhaps they have not. But we have recognised over the years that there should be some means by which a person is at least able to have his case heard. The people of the Northern Territory have not been able to have their case heard, no matter what has been done by way of legislation or other means. So I support the Bill. I believe that it is a step forward. I support the remarks of the previous speakers. I look forward to this Bill being proclaimed an Act at an early date and to the Ombudsman and his 2 deputies being appointed at the earliest possible time.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I share the enthusiasm of my colleagues over the belated arrival of this important piece of legislation in this chamber. Senator Missen has reminded us that it was the next matter on the notice paper when the thunderclap of 1 1 November took everything off the notice paper. This overdue measure to give protection to the ordinary citizen against excesses of the bureaucracy or of government departments has been delayed by the events of last year, which, I suggest, more and more people are beginning to realise have had such a disastrous effect on the solution of the problems facing this country.

I share Senator Missen ‘s regrets that the actions of Ministers will be excluded- at least for the present- from the scrutiny of the ombudsman. I see no philosophical justification for that, even though I acknowledge that my own Party did not believe when it introduced its legislation last year that the conduct of Ministers should be scrutinised. I am for more and more open government and I believe that Ministers should not try to conceal anything from the public or should not have a right to the protection that they are still given under this Bill. A hypothetical matter that comes to mind is this: Let us suppose that the Commissioner for Community Relations was enthusiastically and diligently exploring and investigating allegations of discrimination against Aborigines- for instance, in some of the areas of New South Wales where that is most endemic and most notorious, such as Wee Waa, Moree and places like that- and that complaints were made by Aborigines that no action was forthcoming and that the real, if I can use a nonracist term, negro in the woodpile turned out to be an instruction from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that the Commissioner for Community Relations was to run dead in this area because of some electoral pressures. The most enthusiastic action by the Commissioner for Community Relations then would be nullified. The man whose conduct really should be being investigated by the Ombudsman would be the Minister himself. I say that as a hypothetical situation, but it highlights a shortcoming in this legislation.

It was said by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) in his second reading speech and it has been echoed by most of the speakers that it probably will turn out that only a small proportion of the complaints dealt with by the Ombudsman are matters of substance. That may or may not be the case. I hope it is right because if it is right it means that our bureaucracy is doing its job properly and that there is little to complain of. However, the fact that there does exist in the public’s mind a feeling that there are things to complain of is what makes it common ground with all parties that there has to be an ombudsman. The matter is not so much the rectification of grievances as a feeling in the public that, as the Minister said, there is available an external and impartial investigator to inquire into the matter. The strength of the Ombudsman’s work lies in the independence and impartiality of his investigation. It is important to bear in mind, as has been pointed out by the Minister, that the ombudsman’s power is not a power to do anything to rectify a grievance but a power to bring it to public light. As he has said, the only sanction that the Ombudsman has, which is a very powerful one, is in his power to report to this Parliament where a grievance is not put right to his satisfaction. The Minister also pointed out, and every speaker has highlighted this point, that the operations of his office must be carried out in an essentially personal manner.

It is not so much the legislation which is before this Parliament that should exercise the minds of the legislators. It is more important, as Senator Missen and other speakers have said, that, especially in the first instance, an impeccable appointment should be made because the worth of this legislation ultimately will depend entirely upon the standing in the eyes of the community of the man appointed to do the job. If there is any suspicion that his role is tainted in any way by a concern on the part of those who appoint him to have him look after the government’s interests, cover up scandals or be subject to some sort of direction from the Executive, it will be not only not an advance in democratic procedures but also a positive setback because it will diminish the already fragile respect which more and more people have in democratic institutions since the events of last year.

I say that especially because of a strong rumour which is current in legal and political circles, especially in the city of Sydney, that there is already a governmental pea for this job. This man- a prominent lawyer and a former member of this Parliament- has been active in the past few months as a propagandist on behalf of the Government’s side of politics in respect of the constitutional events of last year and has made several quite vicious attacks upon the Whitlam Government. He has attended public meetings, he has attended seminars and he has contributed to newspapers and learned journals taking up this highly partisan position. I hope I am wrong. I hope there is no truth in the rumour. The man to whom I am referring is Mr Edward St John, Q.C. I say that I have quoted his name entirely to illustrate what the Government will have to be particularly careful about. I would say that a man of his performance is disqualified in the public’s eye not because of any deficiency of talent or character but merely because if he is appointedI am not suggesting that if he were appointed he would not attempt to act conscientiously and impartially- there would be a doubt in the public’s eye.

It is more important even than in the case of a judicial appointment that the man who is appointed as an ombudsman should be totally untained by any suggestion of partiality towards any side of politics. I stress therefore that the most important aspect of this legislation is care in the choice of the Ombudsman. I agree with Senator Missen that he does not necessarily have to be a lawyer. In fact, I would prefer that he should not be a lawyer. The most important qualification that he should have if he is to be able to carry out his job in a way that will satisfy the public is that he is the sort of man who will look after the public’s interest and not the interests of any Party and that he is a man whose record places him totally above Party controversy.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– Like other honourable senators, I rise with enthusiasm to support this Bill, which is a Bill to establish the office of Commonwealth Ombudsman and to enable the investigation of complaints about the administrative action of government departments, statutory authorities and other official bodies. I think that it is an important piece of reform legislation which deserves the sort of bipartisan support that it has received. The legislation recognises the complexities of Australian society and of government and administration and it also recognises the great need for new methods by which members of the public are able to appeal or complain about their dealings with government and Commonwealth employees where they feel that it is necessary to do so.

Many other speakers have pointed out that the concept of the Ombudsman is not a new one. The first ombudsman of the kind which we are discussing was appointed in Sweden in the early nineteenth century. The first ombudsman in Australia was appointed, I think, in 1971. Since then five of the Australian States have appointed ombudsmen. The one thing in particular that these appointments have demonstrated has been the great need for this sort of office holder in our society. That need, of course, is also recognised clearly in this legislation, and the responsibility of the Commonwealth in appointing an ombudsman is also accepted through this legislation.

While the legislation is specifically to appoint a Commonwealth ombudsman, it also provides for the appointment of 2 Deputy ombudsmen. I want to refer to that provision in particular. Clause 23 of the Bill provides that the Minister may by notice published in the Australian Government Gazette designate a Deputy Ombudsman for the Australian Capital Territory, and under sub-clause (2) of that clause it is stated:

The Deputy Ombudsman for the Australian Capital Territory has all the powers, and may exercise all the functions, of the Commonwealth Ombudsman in relation to action taken by a Department or by a prescribed authority in the Australian Capital Territory, except the power to report to the Parliament under section 1 7 or 1 9.

First of all that recognises in the appointment of the Deputy Ombudsman to the Capital Territory the particular responsibilities of the Commonwealth in this Territory. It will also ensure that the people of the Capital Territory will have access to an ombudsman in matters which in the States would now be directed to the State Ombudsman. While the Commonwealth Ombudsman will have power to investigate the whole field of administrative activity of government and to make recommendations for remedial action where necessary, the Australian Capital Territory’s Deputy Ombudsman will be able to report directly to and seek action through the Commonwealth Ombudsman on matters directly relevant to the Capital Territory. Of course the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s ultimate authority will be the right to report to Parliament if effective action to overcome a particular problem is not otherwise taken. The Legislative Assembly of the Capital Territory will be given reports by the Deputy Ombudsman relating to actions taken under the relevant ordinances of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly.

I would also like to refer to the relevance and the importance of this legislation to Commonwealth employees. It obviously has important implications for Commonwealth employees as it is their actions which the Ombudsman will be empowered to investigate if complaints are made. As a member of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and one who was a Commonwealth employee for 11 years before entering this Parliament, I think this is a matter which deserves very close attention. In many cases the Ombudsman may find, as has occurred elsewhere, that the complaint would really identify a fault in the system or in administrative arrangements rather than with any individual. It is very difficult to obtain any accurate statistics, but it seems that around 10 per cent of complaints are found to be fully justified and requiring formal action by ombudsmen. I say that to indicate that it is really only in a small proportion of cases that ombudsmen generally have found it necessary to take action. The resolution of problems or complaints is usually obtained quickly and relatively simply. I have no doubt that the Ombudsman and the Deputy Ombudsmen when appointed will direct their attention to these sorts of administrative issues as well as to the question of complaints against individuals. It is my understanding that Public Service organisations and representatives consider that this Bill implements a valuable innovation. The Bill gives the Ombudsman and his deputies power to prevent unnecessary harassment of Commonwealth employees through complaints. I refer particularly to clause 6 of the Bill, which states: the Ombudsman may, in his discretion, decide not to investigate the action or, if he has commenced to investigate the action, decide not to investigate the action further … if

This is among other reasons- in the opinion of the Ombudsman-

  1. the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or was not made in good faith;

That provision and others in clause 6 go a long way to ensuring that the Ombudsman will be able to protect Commonwealth employees against unnecessary action or complaint That is important. Of course it depends to some extent on the person appointed. I believe that the Ombudsman appointed should certainly give very close attention to the rights of Commonwealth employees in this respect. The Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs (Senator Durack) in his second reading speech said:

The Ombudsman and the Deputies are given protection from removal from office akin to that accorded to judges, so that there is little likelihood of an Ombudsman’s independence of operation being influenced by the Executive Government.

I can only say that I hope that provision is adhered to closely. There is provision in the Bill to ensure this, and I believe it should be observed in the most precise manner. That in itself, and the degree to which Parliament in the Bill has the ultimate right to seek the removal of an ombudsman through both Houses of Parliament, emphasises the close relationship between the Ombudsman and the national Parliament. So while the Commonwealth Ombudsman and his Deputies will allow the public to make their complaints on whatever grievances they feel need to be examined, this Parliament will also be provided with an opportunity to have a greater role in examining the administrative processes of government. That in itself is significant. It is also significant that the fundamental sanction that the Ombudsman has is the power to report to this Parliament. It is a very powerful sanction. I think it provides a significant potential role for Parliament in the examination of such issues. In particular I believe this legislation is a welcome and special recognition of the needs and rights of the people of the Capital Territory in the appointment of a Deputy Ombudsman. I have pleasure in supporting it.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– in reply- I thank honourable senators for the support of the Bill. I am sure it will be a magnificent start for the new institution of Commonwealth Ombudsman that the institution should have such enthusiastic support as has been expressed on both sides of the chamber in the debate this afternoon. It has been a most valuable debate. All the contributions to it contained points which were unique, interesting and valuable. I propose to comment briefly on them all, although I know that I will incur the wrath of my Whip, if nobody else, if I take too long about it.

First of all, Senator Mulvihill raised the question of what in future will be the policy of the Government in relation to the granting or refusal of passports, the removal of passports, or the granting or refusal of citizenship. The cases he has in mind generally would require ministerial decisions rather than decisions by departmental officers. Therefore they do not really come within the purview of the Ombudsman’s authority under the Bill. However the question is one which is exercising the attention of the Government very closely. The decision of the Government is awaiting the Hope report on these matters because security questions are involved. The question will be whether or not rights of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal can be given in these cases, but as I have said the decision on that is awaiting the Hope report. I am sure from what Senator Mulvihill told us that his views have been taken on board by Mr Justice Hope.

Senator Missen raised several important questions. One was the question of delegation to the State ombudsmen. Certainly there will be only one Commonwealth ombudsman but he will probably have an officer or officers in each State. The Bill provides in clause 34 for delegation to an officer and that of course would include an officer in a State. It is wide enough to include a delegation to a State ombudsman. Certainly, although no decisions have been taken about delegations to State ombudsmen, it is a matter that will be considered by the Attorney and no doubt by the Ombudsman when he is appointed.

Senator Missen referred to deficiencies in the Bill as he saw them. In his view the provisions of the Bill do not cover ministerial decisions but only decisions of departmental officers. This point of course was also supported by Senator James McClelland, although it is recognised that the Bill introduced last year by the Labor Government also excluded ministerial action from the authority and purview of the Ombudsman. That is a question on which both the Labor Government and the present Government have taken the same view. I think it is an open question which could always be considered. No doubt the main problem is to distinguish between policy decisions and other decisions. Nobody suggests the ombudsman should have any control over policy decisions by Ministers. It is difficult perhaps to make distinctions between policy decisions and administrative decisions. However, this is a new scheme and I think the attitude ought to be: Let us see how it works. The ombudsman will have a good deal of authority and a good deal of work to do. We should proceed slowly and after he gets under way no doubt the question of extending his jurisdiction could be considered.

As far as the appointment of the Ombudsman is concerned, Senator Missen expressed the view that it should be an appointment by the Parliament. I think that point was also supported by Senator Colston. Such a method of appointment, of course, would be a fundamental departure from the general method of appointment of officials and judicial officers. It is hard to see why there should be a distinction between this appointment and the appointment of, say, High Court judges who must display exactly the same inpartiality and independence. It has been recognised that judges have these qualities despite their appointments by governments. I think there is probably no justification for a distinction to be made between the appointment of High Court judges, for example, and the Ombudsman.

Senator Colston raised the question of jurisdiction in relation to social security appeals. The question of appeals from the Social Security Appeals Tribunals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is under very close consideration by the Government and any moves in that direction would probably be towards the Administrative Appeals Tribunal rather than widening the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman in this regard.

The Government will accept Senator Kilgariff’s proposed amendment when he moves it in the Committee stage. Senator James McClelland, apart from his support for several points that were made by Senator Missen, raised the specific question of what he called a rumour running in Sydney that there was, to use his phrase, a ‘Government pea already in existence ‘. Then he mentioned Mr St John. It is certainly very hard in view of Mr St John’s past career in and relations with the parties which form this Government to imagine that he would be regarded as a ‘Government pea’ for the job. I can assure Senator James McClelland and the Senate that no decision has been made as to the person to be appointed as the ombudsman. I was talking to the Attorney yesterday about the whole question of this Bill. He expressed to me the concern that he had about getting the right man. He is very concerned about it. He fully appreciates the points that have been made about the vital question as to the person to be selected and realises that the whole scheme depends very much on who is selected. I can assure the Senate that no decision has yet been made by the Government.

Senator Wriedt:

– He would not be as concerned at the moment as Mr Lynch is.

Senator DURACK:

– He is very concerned about this matter, as we all are about any matters within our responsibility. Senator Knight pointed to the fact that there is provision in the Bill for Deputy Ombudsmen for the Territories. That is an important extension of the role of the Ombudsman and it will be in future. I can assure the honourable senator that the jurisdiction of the ombudsman would extend to expressing views on administrative procedures as well as on actual complaints made about an officer.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I move:

Clause5, after paragraph (d) of sub-clause (2) insert the following paragraph: (da) action that a person employed in the Public Service of the Northern Territory as a member of the staff of the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory takes, or purports to take, by virtue of his being a member of that staff; ‘.

Briefly by way of explanation, Part II of the Bill deals with the establishment, functions, powers and duties of the Ombudsman. Clause 5 sets out the functions of the Ombudsman. Clause 5 (2) says that the Ombudsman is not authorised to investigate action taken by a Minister, action taken by a justice or judge of a court created by the Parliament, and so on. The purpose of my amendment is to provide that the Ombudsman is not authorised to investigate action by an employee of the Public Service of the Northern Territory as a member of the staff of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. This matter was brought up in the second reading debate. Clause 3 (1) in the definition of ‘Department’, excludes departments of the Houses of Parliament. It is for that reason that I have moved this amendment.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– The Opposition does not oppose the amendment. I have checked with other people on my side who are more competent than I and they have given their imprimatur to the amendment.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-We regard the proposed amendment as being unobjectionable but superfluous. A close reading of clause 5 (2) (d) would seem to suggest to me at least that the people whom Senator Kilgariff wishes to protect or to have excluded from the scrutiny of the Ombudsman are adequately covered. I would appreciate some clarification from him as to what it is that he fears, failing the insertion of this proposed amendment.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I think Senator James McClelland is mistaken. Clause 5 (2) (d) is very restrictive. It relates only to action taken in relation to that employment, including action taken with respect to the promotion’, and so forth. To that extent it is a limited restriction on the Public Service of the Northern Territory, but Senator Kilgariff’s amendment seeks to put employees of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory in the same position as employees of departments of this Parliament who are excluded under this Bill. It is true that it is done in a different way because our own departments of the Federal Parliament do not come within the purview of the Ombudsman at all, as is provided for in clause 5 ( 1 ) (a), because there is no department by definition. All Senator Kilgariff is doing by adding this provision to sub-clause (2) of clause 5 is putting the same type of parliamentary department of the Northern Territory in the same situation. I suggest that it is necessary to do that.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– The Government believes that the amendment is necessary to effect the change that Senator Kilgariff seeks to make and agrees to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2558

PRICES JUSTIFICATION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

This Bill is designed to give effect to the Government’s decision, which I announced in my statement on 16 September, to alter the operations of the Prices Justification Tribunal. In that statement I referred to the extensive consultations which had taken place with the trade union movement, business organisations and other sections of the community.

The changes contained in this Bill reflect the decision of the Government to retain the Prices Justification Tribunal but in a substantially modified form. The cumulative purpose of the changes is to bring about a very significant reduction in the number of companies which must notify the Tribunal of their price increases, with a view to the Tribunal’s principal function being that of price surveillance rather than price approval.

Experience with the operations of the Tribunal over the last 3 years clearly shows that the bulk of the very large number of price notifications have been approved on the basis originally notified to the Tribunal. While this has shown that there is a high level of price responsibility on the part of Australian business, the need for companies to service the requirements of the Tribunal has been at a very significant cost to business generally. This Bill will significantly reduce these costs without affecting the capacity of the Tribunal to act in appropriate cases. In other words, the Tribunal will have a greater capacity to use its resources to investigate those areas where there is evidence of price abuse. Thus, while the notification procedures and other key features of the legislation are retained, the obligation to notify price increases will apply only to companies in the over $30m turnover class and to those subsidiaries of prescribed companies which have annual turnovers above $5m. It will, however, remain within the discretion of the Tribunal, or as required by the Government, to inquire into and report on prices charged by companies irrespective of their turnover.

It is estimated that the combined effect of these 2 changes alone will relieve about half of the companies presently notifying their prices to the

Tribunal from the requirement to do so. The Tribunal has already taken action to exempt companies with annual turnovers between $20m and $30m, pending these amendments. The further exclusion of subsidiary companies with a turnover of less than $5m annually will remove a large group of firms which have little, if any, control over the markets in which they operate and which are caught up in the notification provisions solely by virtue of their relationship to a holding company.

The Bill contains a positive requirement that the Tribunal in dealing with notifications pay due regard to the need for companies to achieve levels of profitability sufficient to maintain adequate levels of investment and employment. As foreshadowed in my statement of 16 September the existing exemption provisions of the Act will be substantially broadened. Whilst the Tribunal will retain a discretion regarding the granting of exemptions it will in terms of the amendments now before the Senate be required to address its mind to certain specific matters in the process of determining whether or not an exemption should be granted to a company normally required to notify price increases.

The specific criteria to be inserted into the Act are not meant to be exhaustive of the matters to be considered by the Tribunal in deciding upon exemptions but to indicate the view of the Government that some legislative indication is required of the type of matters which should be taken into account by the Tribunal with respect to exemptions. Therefore the Bill provides that in exercising its discretion regarding exemptions the Tribunal should at least consider the following: Firstly, whether or not the company or companies concerned are in a position substantially to control a market for goods and services; and secondly, the reasonableness of the pricing behaviour of a company or companies over a period of time.

In respect of the first of these elements the Bill in effect copies the monopoly provision of the trade practices legislation. This will promote a greater consistency of approach between the deliberations of the Tribunal and the Trade Practices Commission regarding the nature and structure of markets. In addition, the amendments specifically allow exemptions to be granted in respect of the whole or any part of the range of goods and/or services produced or provided by a company.

The Government intends that the effect of the new exemption procedures will be to significantly increase the ability of companies normally required to notify price increases to obtain exemptions. The Government also intends that exemptions will not be subject to reporting conditions. Exemptions will only be revoked if the Tribunal is satisfied that the circumstances by reason of which the exemption was granted no longer exist, or that there has been a material change in those circumstances. Revocation of an exemption will be subject to the company receiving not less than 14 days notice. The thrust of these changes is to ensure that exemptions are of real benefit to companies in that they do not have associated with them the onerous reporting conditions attaching to the notification procedures.

Experience with the appointment of Associate Commissioners to the Industries Assistance Commission indicates that there will be considerable advantage in having associate members of the Prices Justification Tribunal. Associate members will be appointed for either extended periods or for specific inquiries and will allow for the appointment of persons- including experienced representatives of the trade union movement as well as experienced businessmen- having expertise in a particular area to serve on the Tribunal as occasion arises.

I turn now to a number of other provisions that are of lesser policy significance. Some of these will assist in the better functioning of the Tribunal. Other changes incorporate machinery and formal amendments to the Act. The Act provides that where a company does not implement an approved price increase within 30 days, it must renotify the Tribunal should it wish to apply the increase at a later time. This time limitation has the effect of forcing up prices unnecessarily quickly and imposing re-notification costs on companies where price increases cannot be passed on within 30 days. The Bill extends this time limit to 90 days. Provision is made for the Tribunal to report each half year on the most significant increases in prices in each industry, and the principal reasons for these increases.

It has been decided that the Act should provide for only one Deputy Chairman. This will bring it into line with the Trade Practices Act which has provision for one Deputy Chairman and the Industries Assistance Commission Act which provides for a Commissioner to be appointed the Executive Commissioner to assist the Chairman in the performance of his duties and the exercise of his powers. Changes have also been made to the quorum provisions for meetings of the Tribunal to accommodate difficulties which have arisen in the past. Provision is also included for the Chairman to be an ex officio member of all Divisions of the Tribunal, and for simplification of certain inquiry procedures.

The Government’s view is that this Bill will alter the function of the Tribunal from that of a price approval body to one of price surveillance. In this form it will more effectively complement the activities of the Trade Practices Commission and the Industries Assistance Commission. The Government will be closely monitoring the effects of the Tribunal’s operations during the next 9 to 12 months to ensure that the Government’s objectives are being met. The changes the Government is making to the Tribunal will play a part in ensuring that there are not unreasonable administrative restraints placed upon economic recovery. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2560

ADJOURNMENT

The Senate

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

-I move-

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I think that the Government has dealt with sufficient of its program, and I thank all honourable senators for all the work they have done this week. I know that some people would like to get home tonight.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.38 p.m.

page 2561

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Diseases Associated with the Thyroid, Bone Cancer and Leukaemia (Question No. 1178)

Senator Keeffe:

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

  1. 1 ) Have there been any increases in the rate of diseases associated with the thyroid, bone cancer, and leukaemia in Australia since 1957.
  2. ) What were the annual occurrences of each of these diseases for each of the past nineteen years for the whole of Australia.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) There is no regular collection of general morbidity statistics relating to the Australian population. It is, therefore, not possible to provide statistics of annual occurrences of diseases associated with the thyroid gland, bone cancer and leukaemia. Nor is it possible to say whether there have been any increases in rates of incidence of these diseases in Australia since 1 957.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics conducted household sample surveys in May 1968 and May 1974, in which the numbers of persons who reported themselves as suffering from chronic illnesses, injuries and impairments were found. Estimates of the numbers of persons in the population with diseases of the thyroid gland, and corresponding rates, were derived from the results of the sample and are shown in Table 1. These estimates are subject to variability due to a sample rather than the whole population having been enumerated. The information provided by respondents, may not necessarily have been based on diagnosis by medical practitioners, and excludes cases where the respondent was not aware of a condition, or chose not to disclose it.

The numbers of deaths registered in Australia and selected corresponding death rates for both males and females ( 1957 to 1974 inclusive) from diseases associated with the thyroid, bone cancer, and leukaemia and aleukaemia are shown in Tables 2, 4 and 6 respectively.

The statistics of deaths registered indicate a slight downward trend in the death rate due to diseases associated with the thyroid gland, and small upward trends in death rates for bone cancer and leukaemia (including aleukaemia). However, this does not necessarily reflect the same movement in the occurrence of the disease.

The following tables have been compiled from statistics published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics:

Citizen Band Transceivers (Question No. 1007)

Senator Primmer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

How many one and five watt citizen band transceivers have been imported into Australia over the past year.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Post and Telecommunications Department presently has no authentic figures available regarding numbers of such units imported into Australia. Inquiries undertaken by my Department to obtain the desired information have not been successful.

Radioactive Decay Products (Question No. 1062)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. Did the United States Environmental Protection Agency publish in 1973 a report entitled ‘Environmental Analysis of the Uranium Fuel Cycle’.
  2. Did this indicate that mill tailings piles associated with the generation of electricity from uranium contained appreciable amounts of the radioactive decay products of thorium-230: radon-222, together with some short-lived polonium-218 and polonium-2 14, lead-214 and bismuth-214.
  3. What are the health risks of these decay products of thorium and other radioactive materials.
  4. Does the Minister have evidence to support the contention of Professor Robert O. Pohl, in Search of August 1 976, that there is a significant health risk associated with the presence of these radioactive decay products.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Inadequate control of decay products mentioned in part 2 may increase the chance of developing lung cancer. The Department of Health has, however, issued a document entitled ‘Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores 1975 ‘which sets the radiation standards that should be applied and the procedures that should be adopted to minimise radiation exposure. If the conditions of this Code are met, miners, mill workers and members of the public may be assured that the health risk from radon and decay products is negligible.
  4. There is no evidence that the presence of decay products arising from the emanation of radon from properly managed uranium mill tailings poses a significant health risk to individuals living today or in the future. Indeed, I understand that the arguments contained in the article to which the honourable senator refers were subject to serious criticism in the same issue of Search.

Vinyl Chloride Monomer (Question No. 1064)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the National Health and Medical Research Council produce in 1975 an Australian code of safe practice for vinyl chloride manufacture. If so, what steps have been taken to implement this code of practice.
  2. What is the Commonwealth authority in this area and what monitoring of the efficacy of the code of practice is carried out.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. There are two manufacturers of vinyl chloride monomer in Australia both of whom have implemented the code of practice.
  2. Commonwealth authority in this area is limited by the Constitution and monitoring of the efficacy of the code of practice is the responsibility of and undertaken by the health authorities in the States where manufacturing plants are located.

My colleague the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following information that is relevant to this question and also to questions 1062 and 1063 asked by the honourable senator, answers to which I have already provided:

The Commonwealth and the States have been concerned at possible effects of certain chemicals on the environment and, through the Australian Environment Council (AEC), joint action is being taken to develop recommendations on appropriate control measures. Activities are well advanced for several specific chemicals including mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), cadmium and lead in petrol.

In addition the AEC has recently decided to develop recommendations on comprehensive policy measures for the assessment and control of environmentally hazardous chemicals. This decision is strongly supported by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development Consultations are being initiated between Commonwealth departments covering environmental, health, agricultural and other relevant interests to develop a co-ordinated input to this activity. Where appropriate, discussions will also take place with industry bodies’.

Public Service Board Regulation 97C (Question No. 1069)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice:

Has the Government, under Public Service Board Regulation 97C, paid out any money for re-imbursement of higher electricity charges following increases in electricity charges for the Northern Territory of 39 to 50 per cent. If so, how much has been paid and how long is it expected that reimbursement under this regulation will continue.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Public Service Board has provided the following advice on the payment in the Northern Territory of allowances under Regulation 97C of the Public Service Regulations.

The increased electricity charges for the Northern Territory apply to quarters or supply periods commencing on or after 5 July 1976. Regulation 97C was amended with effect on and from 14 October 1976 by Statutory Rule No. 229 of 1976, which introduced new scales of contributions by officers, in accordance with procedures developed by the Joint Council. On and from 14 October, Northern Territory electricity charges do not attract allowances under the regulation.

The only accounts which can attract payment of allowances under the regulation are:

1 ) those in respect of less than a quarter for supply periods commencing on or after 5 July 1976 and ending on or before 1 3 October 1 976, and

full quarters ending between 5 and 13 October 1976 inclusive. The maximum allowance payable would be $4.60 for a full quarter.

Northern Territory Departments expect few claims and, at 1 5 November, no payments had been made.

North- West Australia: Corned Beef Industry (Question No. 1172)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Would it be reasonable to reduce stock in the northwest of Australia by killing off many of the cows.
  2. Could these cows form the basis of a corned beef industry in the north-west.
  3. Will the Government consider the possibility of subsidising the construction of such a meat canning works and the continued subsidisation of the freight and other charges of transporting the necessary tin plate to either Derby or Broome.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The question assumes that there is overstocking on pastoral holdings. See answer to Question No. 1173.
  2. and (3) Provision of slaughtering and meat processing facilities such as those suggested is essentially a matter for commercial decision by companies or individuals. Assistance for such ventures would be a matter for the State Government in the first instance.

Medibank Claim Forms (Question No. 1228)

Senator Colston:

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

Why has the term ‘Given Name’ on Medibank Claim Forms been replaced by ‘ Christian or Given Names ‘.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The use of the description ‘given names’ on forms was instituted by the previous Government in 1974 and applied to all administrative forms.

This matter was subsequently reviewed by the present Government which determined that the appropriate wording for Commonwealth Government forms is ‘Christian or given names’ and that this wording should be used in all new and reprinted forms unless there is a statutory requirement which would, for the time being, prevent its introduction.

Department of Business and Consumer Affairs: Staff Ceilings (Question No. 1262)

Senator Button:
VICTORIA

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

What is the projected staff ceiling for the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs as at 30 June 1 977.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 1246, which appeared in Hansard on 9 November 1976(page 1774).

Cedar Bay Police Raid (Question No. 1323)

Senator Colston:

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

How and when did the Minister first become aware that the police raid at Cedar Bay on 29 August 1976 had taken place.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

I saw some Press references to the matter shortly after 29 August. However details of the Customs involvement were notified to me by memorandum on 9 September.

Two-way Radio Communication Between Private Citizens (Question No. 1334)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

What decisions, if any, have been made to relax the stringent restrictions on the use of two-way radio for communication between private citizens over short to moderate distances.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

None. However my Department is at present reexamining the feasibility of such restrictions being relaxed following which it will furnish a comprehensive report to me on the matter. ‘Briskar” Straddle Carrier: Manufacture in South Africa (Question No. 1367)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade on 11 November 1976 the following question, upon notice:

Have South African port authorities placed an order worth $11.5m for the ‘Briskar’ straddle carrier, designed at the Hamilton container terminal of Brisbane Wharves and Wool Dumping Pty Ltd licensees, Dorman Long Vanderbiji Corporation Ltd. If so,

what are the details of the order;

is the arrangement consistent with United Nations’ policy on trade with South Africa; and

does the order indicate a change in Australia’s trading policy towards South Africa; if so, what are the details.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. Brisbane Wharves and Wool Dumping Pty Ltd has advised that on 3 October 1975 it entered into a royalty agreement with Dorman Long Vanderbiji Corporation Ltd to manufacture the ‘Briskar’ straddle carrier in South Africa according to the former’s design specifications.

On 28 April 1976 the Dorman Long group was awarded a contract to supply the South African Department of Railways and Harbours with 57 straddle carriers with timing for completion of the first machine December 1976, the second April 1977, and subsequent machines at weekly intervals. Contract value to the Dorman Long group is said to be R11.499m($A12.25m).

The royalty agreement provides for a payment to be made to Brisbane Wharves and Wool Dumping Pty Ltd on the completion and commissioning of each machine.

  1. There are no United Nations mandatory resolutions which require member states to refrain from commercial transactions with South Africa.
  2. The order does not indicate a change in Australia’s trading policy towards South Africa. The Liberal-National

Country Party Government has maintained the general principles established by the previous Government in 1973- that is, that normal economic relations be permitted to continue without avoidable official assistance.

Ethnic Radio

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 15 September 1976 Senator Messner asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question, without notice:

In the light of the decision of the Government to operate ethnic radio station in Sydney and Melbourne under the auspices of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, can the Minister say what future action is contemplated with regard to the ethnic radio programs being broadcast through 5UV in Adelaide?

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

Radio SUV in Adelaide is licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act to experiment with public access broadcasting. Some of the groups who broadcast on SUV are migrants who broadcast in languages other than English. At present, there are no plans for the Government to assume responsibility for these programs.

Special Youth Employment Training Program

Senator Durack:
LP

- Senator Knight on 3 November 1976 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, without notice:

Could the Minister indicate what progress has been made with the NEAT Special Youth Employment Training Program in the Australian Capital Territory.

The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Prior to 22 November 1976, when the criteria for acceptance into the program were eased, S3 young people in the Australian Capital Territory qualified for assistance under the program and, of these, 35 had been placed in employment training.

The types of jobs in which trainees have been placed include sales/shop assistants, office assistant, trade assistant, optical dispenser and a trainee key cutter.

At this stage, it is not known precisely what the effect of the new criteria will be in the Australian Capital Territory but this should be apparent by mid-December.

Australian Telecommunications Commission: Charges

Senator Carrick:
LP

- Senator Tehan asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question without notice on 1 1 November 1976:

Will the Minister ensure that if revenue used for capital works involves any increase in telephone charges he will look at additional borrowings by the Commission to finance capital works before approving any proposed increase in charges?

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

The proposed capital expenditure of $9 10m of Telecom Australia for 1976-77 will not be exceeded. There will not therefore be any pressure from capital works which could result in a proposal to increase charges. In any case it has already been made clear in the Service and Business Outlook for 1976-77 issued by Telecom Australia that it does not propose to seek approval for any increase in charges for its major services during this financial year.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 December 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19761203_senate_30_s70/>.