Senate
21 April 1977

30th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1977

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 857

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Education

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

Technical and Further Education has been a neglected area of education for many years. The shortage of funds over many years has brought about the purchase of sub-standard buildings as well as the degeneration of many existing buildings and now many teachers and students are working in dilapidated conditions that are unhealthy and must inhibit the learning process.

The magnitude of this problem can be clearly seen in the Sydney Technical College complex where the majority of the student population of 40 000 enrolments is being housed in converted Department Stores and other outmoded buildings.

We recognise the urgent need to develop the technology and training of sufficient skilled persons to meet Australia’ s future needs and call upon the Federal Government to take urgent immediate action by providing a massive injection of funds into the TAFE area, giving special consideration to alleviating the deplorable conditions at Sydney Technical College.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate, the Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the delays between announcements of each quarterly movement in the Consumer Price Index and their application as a percentage increase in age and invalid pensions is excessive, unnecessary, discriminatory and a cause of economic distress to pensioners.

That proposals to amend the Consumer Price Index by eliminating particular items from the Index could adversely affect the value of future increases in age and invalid pensions and thus be a cause of additional economic hardship to pensioners.

The foregoing facts impel your petitioners to ask the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

  1. Require each quarterly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index to be applied to age and invalid and similar pensions as from the pension pay day nearest following the date of announcement of the CPI movement.
  2. Give an open assurance to all aged and invalid pensioners that any revision of the items comprising the Consumer Price Index will in no way result in reductions in the value of any future entitlements to pensioners.

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

Petition received.

Rhodesia

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

That the Charter of the United Nations clearly precludes it from interference in the domestic affairs of a country or from obstructing the free transmission of news and information between individuals and between nations.

That the United Nations, in apparent illegality, has imposed many restrictions and sanctions upon Rhodesia which has been remarkably free from the bloodshed and turmoil of northern and central African lands, even to the extent now of actively encouraging armed conflict against the legally elected Government of Rhodesia.

Lord Graham as Minister of External Affairs and Defence has said: ‘International Communism is our enemy, all this talk of political advancement and majority rule is no more than a smokescreen in the early skirmishes of an assault upon the whole of Africa . . . It is even difficult to see this enemy because it is not merely attacking us, but on a broad front is attacking the whole world order, its standards, its law and order, its moralities, its churches, its patriotism, its philosophies and even much of its learning . . . ‘

That Communist Chinese infiltration in much of Africa over many years and Cuban Communist troops reported to number 25 000 are dominating nearby Angola, and possess modern missiles etc.

It is urgent that Mozambique, now under Communist domination and which has a common border with Rhodesia, does not receive any further aid from the Commonwealth Government of Australia, which has benefited mainly the terrorist guerilla movements that are responsible for the deaths of many Rhodesian people.

It is urgent for the Australian people to determine for themselves, the actual facts of the Rhodesian struggles.

It is urgent that the Senate and the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled, will observe common justice and proper humanity by inviting only authorised representatives of the present Government of Rhodesia to Australia, to do what they have been deprived to do previously, present their case fully and publicly so that this can be examined and tested, without interference, and so that the eventual impact on Australia’s own security and defence alliances can be gauged with better accuracy.

Your petitioners request urgent action to be taken immediately.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bonner and Senator Jessop.

Petitions received.

Education

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

Technical and further education has been a neglected area of education for many years. Inadequate funds over many years has prevented improvement and renewal of obsolete and decaying buildings. For example in the Newcastle Technical College the buildings at the Wood Street and at the Hunter Street sites are a far cry from the generally good standard found at the Tighes Hill campus, Shortages of funds have precluded reasonable maintenance programs on buildings that are otherwise quite satisfactory.

We recognise the urgent need to develop the technology and training of sufficient skilled persons to meet Australia’s future needs and call upon the Federal Government to make urgent immediate action by providing massive injection of funds into the TAFE area to improve both student accommodation and to provide much needed modern training equipment.

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

Petition received.

Compulsory Retirement of Government Employees

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 Australian Government employees strenously oppose the provisions of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill first introduced in the House of Representatives on 8 December 1976. The basis for opposition includes the following reasons:

  1. The grounds constituting ‘due cause’ for termination of services of tenured staff are expanded beyond those already available in existing legislation thereby introducing subjective discretionary powers which are inconsistent with career service expectations and entitlements;
  2. The Bill relegates to subordinate legislation or administrative direction matters affecting substantive rights of employees including the scale of compensation, the composition and powers of the appellate tribunal, and the criteria upon which services may be terminated;
  3. Existing rights of reinstatement in tenured employment are abrogated by the Bill;
  4. Agreement has not been reached on a number of matters which should have been finalised before any attempt to introduce legislation. These include: an arbitral determination on redundancy arrangements; benefits; procedures.
  5. As currently drafted the Bill overrides entitlements under Arbitration awards.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should subject passage of any legislation to extend powers of compulsory retirement of Australian Government employees unless and until any variation has been agreed with staff representatives.

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

Petition received.

page 858

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 858

QUESTION

FEDERALISM POLICY

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. I remind the Minister that in answer to 2 questions from me yesterday he said:

That pan of stage 2 of the federalism policy which provides a facility for States to use a surcharge or rebate if they wish is not essential and not fundamental to the total working of federalism.

He also stated:

Therefore I repeat that stage 2, as it affects rebates or surcharges, is not essential; it is optional.

I ask the Minister whether these statements are consistent with the philosophy of the Government’s federalism policy, which is:

If government is to be effective, it must be accountable for its actions. It should raise the money which it spends.

Does the Minister’s statement mean that States will not be obliged either next year or for years in the future to raise State income taxes to maintain services which they currently provide? Does the Minister envisage that any State surcharges or rebates would merely be minor adjustments to State finances? If so, will the Minister give an assurance that existing Commonwealth payments to the States by way of general revenue grants, Loan Council borrowings and specific purpose grants, will be maintained in real terms in future years?

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

– The policy adopted by the Federal Government and implemented at the Premiers Conference is wholly consistent with federalism and with the wishes of all States and Premiers over the years to provide for them a source of revenue which will grow at the same rate as Commonwealth revenue and a facility which will give them a range of taxes. The Commonwealth decided- the Premiers Conference agreed upon the general background terms- that it would provide the unilateral legislation which would make it possible for any State if it so desired to legislate itself to impose a surcharge or to make a rebate. However, it is optional for any State not to avail itself of that facility. It is important for the States to have such facilities. The States themselves from time to time have expressed the view that it would be desirable to have cuts in taxation. If that is so, since they occupy a significant part of the whole taxation framework and are tax imposers of considerable stature themselves, they should have the facilities to make rebates as well as use other facilities. So the answer to the second part of the question is that the States are not obliged in any way to legislate to impose a surcharge or to make a rebate, and this is consistent with our philosophy.

In response to the third part of the question, whether the surcharges are imposed is a matter of judgment for the States as it also is a matter of judgment for them whether they make rebates. I remind the Senate that so well is federalism working that this year the States will receive between $90m and $ 100m more in revenue by way of tax-sharing than they would have received under the Whitlam formula and that all States have managed to balance their budgets and I think to cut taxes. The endeavour of the Opposition to suggest that federalism will mean higher taxes is demonstrated in respect of this year alone to be monstrously false. This year federalism has brought about a massive reduction of taxation at both Federal and State levels. The Commonwealth has been able to bring about tax indexation fully, a concept that was rejected by Senator Wriedt ‘s Government when it was in office. All States have been able to cut taxes. So the real virtue of federalism as it has been demonstrated is that it has been able to cut taxes, not to impose more taxes.

As to the future, the question of what money will flow to the States is, of course, one that has been outlined quite clearly in this Parliament. There has been a guarantee to the States that in the 4 years ahead they shall not have their taxsharing revenues fall below what the Whitlam standard would have yielded. My own belief is that certainly in the year ahead no such guarantee will be necessary. As in this year, their revenue will be more buoyant than it would have been under the Whitlam formula. As for the attempt by Senator Wriedt to equate specific purpose grants, which year by year are ad hoc decisions for the most part, with the Commonwealth’s intention to do something in a State using the State as an agent, specific purpose grants in that situation are not a part of the federalism process except to the extent that in federalism we propose to examine each grant and to make arrangements with the States as to the best way of carrying out the functions and of funding the functions.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask a supplementary question because I am sure that Senator Carrick and the Senate generally realise the significance of the replies which he gave yesterday. Fortunately I see that certain sections of the Press also have realised their significance. May I ask the Minister again, firstly, whether we are to understand that all State governments can now accept the proposition that they are not obliged to implement stage 2 of the new federalism arrangements? Secondly, when the Minister says that ‘special purpose payments are not part of federalism’ is he saying that in future the States cannot look forward to the same level of financial support either through specific purpose payments or through loan fund arrangements as they have enjoyed in the past? Lastly, is he still prepared to assert, as he did in reply to Senator Walsh in April last year, that total payments to the States under the new federalism policy will increase in real terms by 58 per cent in the first 3 years of federalism as they did in the 3 years of the Labor Government?

Senator CARRICK:

-It is a matter of public knowledge, because it was stated out of the Premiers Conference and it has been stated by the Prime Minister, by me and I think by the Treasurer on many occasions, that the facilities for States to make tax rebates or to impose surcharges will be made available to them and it is optional for the States to use them. I repeat that, and there has never been any question about it. There is no change; no fall back at all. It is simply a question of maintaining the policy that this Government has always had, namely, that in the armoury of tax rebates or surcharges available to the States they would have this other facility if they required it. I repeat again, and I want to make clear, that the States themselves are the imposers of massive indirect taxes and charges. The suggestion that the Australian Labor Party constantly makes that the States do not impose taxes is nonsense. During the Labor Party’s 3 years of government the effect of its centralisation policies was that the income tax take virtually trebled. That is the alternative to federalism which Senator Wriedt is putting up. Income tax take against the people trebled. As well as that, sales tax and customs and excise charges doubled and the States were all forced violently to impose higher indirect taxes and charges. It is that policy of centralism which Senator Wriedt is now saying is preferable to a policy which on the Federal level and on the State level has cut taxes substantially.

Senator Wriedt:

– Just answer the question.

Senator Gietzelt:

– You are just being rhetorical.

Senator CARRICK:

-It hurts honourable senators opposite to hear the truth. The next part of the question related to specific purpose payments. Whether there is a centralist government or a federalist government, in any one year there will be some section 96 payments. The Whitlam Government increased those kinds of payments to the States from 32 per cent or 37 per cent of total revenue to 52 per cent. The difference under federalism is that the States themselves will have arrangements in terms of funding and function development whereby these will be sorted out, and the forcing of these things upon the States by the Commonwealth will be diminished. Having said that, it is quite clear that overall there will be an abundant opportunity for the States to realise those policies which the States, including the Labor States, have urged upon the Commonwealth over the years. Indeed Mr Dunstan, a

Labor Premier, attacked the 1974 Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party for violating those policies. It is well to remember that Mr Dunstan said that the only way to avoid the destruction of the States by the Whitlam Government was to have a revenue sharing process, the parallel of which have now adopted.

page 860

QUESTION

ABSENCE OF MINISTER

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

-I intervene to inform the Senate that Senator Durack is unavoidably absent today. Honourable senators might direct to me any questions which they desire to ask of him.

page 860

QUESTION

TROPICAL CYCLONES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Science.

Senator Devitt:

– Another Dorothy Dix.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

-No, it is not a Dorothy Dix. The Minister for Science will recall that recently I drew to his attention the concern about tropical cyclones held by the Carnarvon Shire Council. Is it a fact that a team of American scientists now in Australia conducting research into the reduction of the destructive capacity of cyclones will visit the Carnarvon district? In view of the extreme importance of this scientific work in Australia, particularly in the north-west and north, is the Department of Science co-operating in the present experiments? If results of the current project are promising, will the Minister urgently seek extension of the work in Australia?

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

– In the first 10 minutes of question time Senator Drake-Brockman was able to refer this question to me. I do recall a letter from the Carnarvon Shire Council relating to early warning devices that are available for alerting communities to possible cyclones. My recollection is that the letter came through Senator Drake-Brockman, who has been particularly active in this area in Western Australia. He is quite correct in indicating that a news release which I put out approximately a week ago stated that some United States scientists from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration- that is, a group called NOAAare in Australia at the moment to hold discussions with both my Department and the Bureau of Meteorology. It is particularly important that the project known as Stormfury should be properly surveyed. It commenced in the United States in 1961. Apparently in the United States modification of 4 storms has been attempted during the period of operation of the project by the technique of cloud seeding. I am informed that the multiple seeding of a cyclone named Debbie in the United States in 1969 yielded the most encouraging results in that a reduction of maximum wind velocity by about 31 per cent was observed. It can be seen that there is quite a lot of encouragement for our surveying this particular matter.

In Australia in the past there have been no attempts to seed cyclones but, as is known, there has been cloud seeding by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Cloud Physics for rain making purposes. Whilst the United States is interested in extending the operation of project Stormfury into the southern hemisphere, no commitment has been entered into by the respective governments. Apart from legal and political considerations, extension to Australia will proceed only if the nature and frequency of the type of storm that is experienced here suggest that they are suitable for the project and the necessary logistic arrangements can be made and the present United States team feels that the situation is satisfactory. Following Senator Drake-Brockman ‘s question, which related particularly to Carnarvon, I give the honourable senator an assurance that I shall immediately seek to influence the United States team to call at Carnarvon and take advice from the Carnarvon Shire Council.

page 860

QUESTION

SOLAR ENERGY CONVERSION

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Science. I preface my question by drawing the Minister’s attention to a letter to the editor of the Australian newspaper of 12 April 1977, in which it is alleged that the Minister for National Resources and the Minister for Transport had indicated that there was no need for the development of solar energy conversion at this stage and that there would be no energy problem in Australia. In view of the Minister’s stated interest in the work in which the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and other organisations are involved in the field of solar energy, will the Minister comment on the 2 points that I have mentioned? Secondly, will he indicate whether the alleged statements by his 2 colleagues now represent this Government’s policy on energy research and development in Australia?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I did notice the Press article which indicated an attitude supposedly taken by the Minister for National Resources and the Minister for Transport. I can assure the honourable senator that the interpretation by the news media was entirely incorrect and has been set right by a letter from Mr Nixon to the appropriate newspaper. Indeed, if the honourable senator is an avid reader of newspapers he will find that the day before yesterday a letter which set the matter right appeared over Mr Nixon’s signature. Mr Nixon’s letter in no way suggested that the Government was not interested in solar energy research. I cannot refer the honourable senator to the particular newspaper at the moment but the letter appeared the day before yesterday. If the honourable senator reads it he will find that this Government is well committed to research in all areas of energy. Whilst this is a matter for the Minister for National Resources, I assure the honourable senator that the Ministers’ encouragement to the Department of Science and those scientific establishments which come within my portfolio is certainly prompted by their interest in solar research.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I ask a supplementary question. Not being an avid reader of all letters to the editor in various newspapers, may I take it from what the Minister has said that a fairly large sum of money will be made available by the Government for completion of investigations into solar energy?

Senator WEBSTER:

– It is surprising that at question time when only 3 questions have been dealt with, such a question as is asked by the honourable senator can be construed as a supplementary question. It had nothing to do with the initial question asked.

page 861

QUESTION

ARTIFICIAL RAIN MAKING

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Science. I refer to an article in the Australian of 5 April 1977 by Mr Greg Hartung which outlines Israel’s advancements in artificial rain making and in cultivating its arid regions, often using brackish water and Australian native plants. Is it true, as claimed in the article, that Israel has improved its rainfall by 20 per cent through artificial rain making practices. As we are original world pioneers in rain making, what is the progress in Australia of the current artificial rain making research program? Further, what research is being conducted to investigate the cultivation of arid land, as Israel is doing, by using available brackish water and developing hardy, salt-resistant plants?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I did note the article in the Press which contained the claims referred to by the honourable senator. The most important of those claims was that rainfall had increased by approximately 20 per cent. I am unable to verify that and I do not know the facts relating to it. Generally, it is considered that where the environment of the area may be changed either by growth or by the application of water, it is possible for rainfall either to increase or decrease, depending upon the environment. My understanding is that Australia is supplying Israel with suitable trees for its work. My recollection of the article was that it said Israel was using a drip irrigation system whereby the saline or brackish water was dripped in very small quantities on to arid areas and, with the addition of certain fertilisers, was making very great progress in the development of arid areas. Australia has been a leader in both fields. It has been a leader in the field of cloud seeding. As I mentioned in answer to a previous question today in relation to cloud seeding the Division of Cloud Physics has really led Australia in this respect. My understanding of this aspect is that it is still necessary to have a certain type of cloud available for cloud seeding to be successful. So I am unable to comment on the situation in Israel.

I think Australia would be a leader in relation to the use of brackish water. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has been concerned with the development of an original system whereby beads of resin are used for the flow of brackish water or salt water. These beads are placed as a resin bed so that the resin is able to take up the salinity. That has been a major achievement. Within the last few years the Imperial Chemical Industries Australia Ltd has joined in the development of sirotherm. That is one of the major achievements. The international application of these patents I am sure will win great credit for Australia and for ICI which has joined in this scheme. It is possible for small towns now to be able to use sirotherm treatment so that brackish water is turned into 95 per cent clean water. The idea is still not applicable to salt water, as I understand it. This information may be of use to the honourable senator and indeed to the application so far as Israel is concerned.

page 861

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, concerns the meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Canberra. By way of preface I refer to a scientific conference in Sweden a few months ago which was very critical of the current policy. The conference stated that on a scientific basis no attempt was being made to save a number of species of marine mammals which were facing extermination. I therefore ask: Is the Australian delegation which will attend the conference prepared or has it been instructed to advocate a much more conservation inclined policy even to the extent of a 10-year moratorium on certain varieties or even most varieties of whales? In view of an incident in the Senate a couple of weeks ago on differences of reports, will the delegation include a reputable conservationist to sit in so that we will not get varied assessments of what is said at such proceedings?

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

-This question relates to a project called Project Jonah. Just as the whale regurgitated Jonah I am in the process of regurgitating a great amount of information on this subject. I hope that some will be helpful. I refer firstly to the question of a 10-year moratorium to be placed on the agenda. There are moratoria, I am informed, on endangered species. There is strict management control of harvested species. The individual stocks are assessed by species in geographical areas. The discussion of a 10-year moratorium was first suggested by the United States in 1972. The information I have states that there is no scientific rationale for that. The United States now supports the management regime suggested by Australia in 1974. I am informed that it has taken quite a while to get this management regime accepted in the International Whaling Commission and Australia has played a leading role in developing management measures based on the best scientific advice. The scientific committee of IWC comprises the world’s leading whale biologists and population dynamicists- which is a beautiful new word. It includes scientists from the United Nations environment program, the Food and Agricultural Organisation, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, private institutions etc. They are nominated by governments on behalf of the people who have knowledge of whales. The objective in Australia is conservation of all whale species on a global basis. We support the continuation of the industry based on the scientific committee’s advice. It is said that a blanket moratorium without the leading whaling nations would be no moratorium at all. It clearly requires a rational international management but not attacks on the only viable international management body. That is as much information as I have on that matter. I have some information relating to the various members of the Commission. I can give the precise details of their background to the honourable senator after question time.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I do not wish to indulge in asking supplementary questions, but I think that Senator Cotton will appreciate that I asked about the conservationist representative on our current team.

Senator COTTON:

-I shall have to obtain more data about the members. The information I have does not illustrate how far down the track we are in that area.

page 862

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-I direct a question to the Acting Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is it correct that companies and individuals, particularly in the industrial, pastoral and mining spheres, are indicating reluctance to invest or to continue development in the Northern Territory because of particular issues that are now becoming more apparent since the commencement of the Northern Territory Aboriginal land rights legislation. I refer particularly to the fact that pastoral leases at the turnover point, that is the exploration of the lease, can become unalienated land and available to claim, and to the recognition of the secondary succession principle which could mean the acceptance that all land in the Northern Territory is open to claim. Because the claiming of land is open-ended there is no terminating date for the acceptance of claims in the future. Land held under Aboriginal reserves and land claims is rising steadily, encompassing at present probably 36 per cent to 40 per cent of the land area of the Northern Territory. If the situation is not as I have described it will the Minister make a statement correcting that viewpoint and further establish communications with the people of the north to ensure that this fear of the unknown for the future is dispelled?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– I am advised by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs that we are not aware that companies and individuals, particularly in industry, pastoral and mining spheres, are indicating reluctance to invest or to continue development in the Northern Territory as a result of the Commonwealth Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is contrary to evidence which was given before the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– If the honourable senator or any other senator is aware of particular instances when investors or prospective investors in the Northern Territory have felt inhibited as a result of this legislation, we should be grateful if they were drawn to the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs or his Department. They would then be able to advise the people concerned as to the validity of their concern. I shall investigate the matters raised in the question to see whether there is anything in it or in the remarks of Senator Cavanagh that would indicate that a statement should be made to clarify the situation.

page 863

QUESTION

THE ECONOMY

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. It relates to the general state of the economy. Did the Prime Minister in his election policy speech 18 months ago state that a government which understands and can manage the Australian economy is essential to Australian prosperity and to the revival of business confidence? Will the Minister agree that since this Government assumed office it has done nothing but take a series of ad hoc economic decisions which, to say the least, have put the Australian economy on a most erratic and uncertain course, thus adding greatly to the lack of business confidence.

Senator Withers:

– The honourable senator is making a statement without asking a question.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am asking a question. I am asking the Minister whether he agrees. As a result of its most recently announced policy to request a voluntary price freeze, on the one hand, and an arbitrarily determined wage freeze, on the other hand, is it still the desire of the Government to encourage consumer spending or is the Government now setting out to dampen down expenditure by wage and salary earners? Finally, when is it intended by the Government to bring down in the Senate the statement on the latest policies of the Government that the Prime Minister made in the House of Representatives last night?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I shall deal with the last part of the question first. The honourable senator will know that today an urgency motion is listed in the name of an honourable senator who sits on your left, Mr President. Tonight the Senate will be dealing with general business and a motion moved by the Opposition. Next Tuesday and Thursday the Estimates committees will be sitting. On Wednesday no doubt the Opposition will want to move an urgency motion.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Why not gag it, like you gagged the urgency motion yesterday?

Senator WITHERS:

-The Opposition ought to make up its mind whether it would like to sit on Friday and Monday and debate the Prime Minister’s economic statement. Senator Gietzelt should not get too cheeky; he is all talk and no knowledge. I am prepared to put down the Prime Minister’s statement next Wednesday afternoon and for it to be debated until dinner time. If Opposition senators want to run an urgency motion on that day they can take their pick. Mr President, I think that is a fair enough offer. I would have put down that statement on Tuesday except that the Estimates committees are to sit on Tuesday and Thursday. As to the first question asked, I cannot recall what was in the policy speech but I take the honourable senator’s assurance that he quoted correctly from it. The answer to his first question is, yes. As to his second question- it was not really a question; it was a dressed-up statementno, I do not agree with one single statement in the question. As to the third question, dress the matter up as Opposition senators may like on this whole issue, the fact is that last week the Prime Minister and 6 State Premiers called upon the nation and individuals and groups within it to come a total Australian consensus to do certain acts. I think that proposition had almost total community support. But who backed out?

Senator Gietzelt:

– The Prime Minister backed out, that is who backed out. He would not even let Mr Street continue the discussions.

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator Gietzelt is all talk and no knowledge, but we are used to that. The fact is that Mr Hawke, who can never quite make up his mind about whether he is President of the Australian Labor Party and therefore pushing a political line, or President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and pushing a union line, would not come to the party. The other fact is that he has no capacity to come to the party anyhow because he is a toothless tiger. He has no capacity to make any arrangement with the Government because he cannot deliver the goods. It is time all honourable senators opposite knew that. Whether one likes it or not, Mr Hawke and his friends attempted yesterday, as a result of a political exercise, to sabotage the whole operation put together last week by the Prime Minister and 6 Premiers.

page 863

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND-AUSTRALIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

-Can the Minister for Industry and Commerce advise whether Press reports arising from the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement meetings reflect the decisions taken? Are any further statements to be made? If so, when can further information be expected?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-The Senate will recall my commenting that there were to be NAFTA talks and the Government was determining a position. Mr Anthony and I went to New Zealand and had those talks with the Deputy Prime Minister for New Zealand, Mr Talboys, and with Mr AdamsSchneider. After that meeting we issued a very detailed communique representing the views of both governments. That communique is available. If any honourable senator has not got it already, we can get it for him. It represents firm government positions on both sides regarding access to each other’s markets and fair opportunities for both countries and the people engaged in industries in them. The whole matter is to be under careful inspection and management, which it is. The honourable senator can speak to me about any particular matter of concern. I am happy to help, if I can, in giving further information. One of the things which did come out, and which perhaps is explained in more detail in the statement, is that the clothing and textile arrangements between the 2 countries have been much more regularised and brought into balance. That is of very substantial benefit to the Australian clothing and textile industry and its employment possibilities.

page 864

QUESTION

REPATRIATION PENSIONS

Senator DEVITT:

-I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in the absence of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Senator Durack. My question is prompted by a number of inquiries to me recently by ex-service beneficiaries of repatriation pensions. It was disclosed in a recent Press article that rises in a number of categories of pensions would take effect in May, next month. The article to which I refer failed to mention any prospective rises in repatriation pensions and benefits. Does this indicate that repatriation beneficiaries may miss out on the rise proposed in May, or does the Government propose to lift repatriation pension rates in line with the other proposals?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I am calling on memory, but I think that if the honourable senator looks at the Repatriation Act he will see that some categories of pensions under the Act are indexed automatically, as are a large number of pensions under the Social Services Act. I think I am correct in saying that. Some categories are not. I think that would answer generally the first part of the honourable senator’s question about which pensions will be automatically increased in May. I shall ask Senator Durack, when he returns to the Senate next Tuesday, to give a reply directly as to those pensions which are not indexed.

page 864

QUESTION

ROAD SAFETY TRAINING

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– My question is directed to Senator Carrick in his capacity as Minister for Education and as Minister representing the Minister for Transport. He is undoubtedly aware of the appalling carnage on Australian roads during the Easter holiday period. There were 75 deaths. Will the Minister, in his capacity as Minister for Education, look at the question of including in school curricula, in co-operation with the States, a compulsory subject dealing with all aspects of road safety, including use and abuse of the motor car, so that by the time a young person reaches the age at which he or she can apply for a licence that person will be conscious of the grave dangers to drivers and passengers occasioned by cars on the highways? Will the Minister refer to the Minister for Transport a suggestion that training centres such as the driver training complex at Shepparton in Victoriawhere children at secondary school level, Victorian departmental drivers, ambulance drivers and others can receive comprehensive training in all aspects of road safety- be set up in various States to further this education program and thus bring some reduction in the road toll?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I would be very happy to put under further study by my Department and to refer to the Australian Education Council the question of curricula development in terms of road safety and prevention of carnage. It would be fair to say that every Australian must be horrified by the mutilation and death that we are self-inflicting- a mutilation which creates in Australia more casualties than war and more personal and domestic heartbreak than any other factor. As Senator Tehan would know, there have been many research projects and a number of parliamentary inquiries into the causes of the road toll. There are various estimates of how much is caused by the sheer accident proneness of the drivers, by the vehicles, by the lack of proper engineering of highways and by other factors. It is certain that the human element, whether in accordance with the Konrad Lorenz concept of the aggressive instinct of the human being or as a result of the influence of drugs, including alcohol, plays a major part in the casualties. I cannot answer specifically now whether one can, in an education system, go far in the development of a prophylaxis. I can say that education in the schools and colleges would not be the total answer but one should not resile from its being a partial answer. The problem is one for the home, the community and the general attitudes of mind. In many schools and colleges in Canberra and elsewhere we undertake instruction both in road safety and in driver instruction. Some of our colleges have extensive training programs. I think it is a very important subject. I shall certainly act upon the question and refer the second part of it to the Minister for Transport.

page 865

QUESTION

GRANTS TO REGIONAL COUNCILS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. As she would know, capitation grant funds were made available to various community projects in Victoria through the Outer Eastern Regional Council for Social Development. Due to savings effected in current projects, approximately $14,000 has become available to the Council which believes that it should be able to reallocate those funds to other projects. As these funds appeared in the 1976-77 Budget as a line entry, Grants to Regional Councils for Social Development, the Regional Council believes that the funds are the responsibility of those councils and that it is due to their careful management that funds are now available and can be spent before 30 June 1977. The Minister at the Swinburne College of Technology on 1 1 March in answer to a specific question stated that she saw no reason why reallocation of funds not fully used by existing projects should not take place provided they could be expended this financial year. Therefore, why has the Minister’s Department demanded that these funds be returned to the Department? Is this happening all over Australia?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– Some of the suggestions in the question are not quite accurate, in particular the statement with regard to comments made at the Swinburne College of Technology. However, as far as the Outer Eastern Regional Council is concerned, all matters have been satisfactorily arranged with the Council and the expenditure of its total amount for the year ended 30 June 1976-77 is being undertaken in accordance with the facts which were mentioned with regard to specific projects. The detail of the matter has been advised to the Council. The approvals and the handling of the funds of the Regional Council have been satisfactorily dealt with and communicated to it, I think yesterday or the day before.

Senator Grimes:

– To whose satisfaction?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– To the satisfaction of the Council and of the Department. The matters which were raised by the Outer Eastern Regional Council were the subject of discussion with the Department and were capable of arrangement in terms of the Australian Assistance Plan in any financial undertakings and the responsibility which needed to be applied to them. In relation to the statement which was made at the Swinburne College of Technology, I have seen the document from which the honourable senator read. It is not quite accurate. What was said at that time was that there should be an investigation of projects prior to 30 June and that these matters could be subject to negotiation. However, I believe the matter is now resolved to the satisfaction of both the Government and the Outer Eastern Regional Council.

Senator MELZER:

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. The Minister answered as far as the Outer Eastern Regional Council is concerned, but what about other regional councils in other parts of Australia?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I believe that some discussions and negotiations are taking place with regard to the Tasmanian Regional Council at the present time. As far as any other regional council is concerned, I understand that there are no problems and that all matters are satisfactorily dealt with.

page 865

QUESTION

RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to the recommendations in the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, which was tabled in the Senate in December last year. The recommendations to which I refer dealt with the handling of radioactive materials, including radioactive waste in the Australian Capital Territory. It was recommended that the Capital Territory Health Commission proceed immediately with the preparation of an ordinance providing for the control and disposal of radioactive waste material and that the Capital Territory Health Commission take measures to be implemented in an emergency involving radioactive materials. Can the Minister say what action has been taken on these recommendations?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– Prior to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, on instructions from the Capital Territory Health Commission the AttorneyGeneral’s Department prepared a draft ordinance to make provision for the control of all aspects of the use of radioactive materials in the Australian Capital Territory, including the control of disposal of radioactive waste. Officers of the Commission have given priority to the Committee ‘s recommendations and have now completed a thorough examination of the draft ordinance. The draft has been found to be unsatisfactory in several aspects and some amendments will have to be made. Further instructions are being sent to the Attorney-General ‘s Department to amend the draft. Following the review of the draft ordinance the Commission recently sought further technical advice from the Australian Radiation Laboratory.

page 866

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether he will inform the Senate why the Prime Minister has refused to consider arranging a national conference of governments, employers and employees to discuss the wages and prices pause. Does not this refusal now expose the much publicised agreement reached at the Premiers Conference last week as nothing more than another worker and wage earner bashing exercise by the Prime Minister which today is being taken a step further with the Prime Minister appealing to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to impose a wages freeze? Finally, in view of Senator Withers’ accusation in answer to a question by Senator Douglas McClelland that Mr Hawke is nothing more than a toothless tiger, will Senator Withers agree to take part in a national debate on television with Mr Hawke to prove his claim?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– There is no reason for me to give that toothless tiger a platform or to publicise him in any way. The honourable senator ought to realise what has happened over the last week and he ought to get his facts in order. At the Premiers Conference there was a call by the 6 State Premiers- three of them are Labor Premiers- and the Prime Minister for both groups and individuals in this country to participate in a pay and price pause for 3 months. There is a call for it.

Senator Button:

– What happened before that? They all failed to agree on the new federalism.

Senator WITHERS:

– Here we go again; all talk and no knowledge. Let us get the facts in order. Out of the Premiers Conference came an agreement signed by the 6 Premiers and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and his Ministers then negotiated the proposal with employer groups and a large number of organisations voluntarily agreed to go along with it.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– But not all.

Senator WITHERS:

-Not all, I quite agree. I said ‘a large number’, so do not try to put other words in my mouth. On his own initiative the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration

Commission, Sir John Moore, called a conference which some of the Premiers said was premature. Honourable senators will recall that the Commonwealth went to that conference called by the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and said that the matter ought to be deferred because the conditions precedent agreed to by the 6 Premiers and the Prime Minister had not yet been fulfilled. They are the facts and they are not in dispute. The other condition precedent that had not been fulfilled was that the employee groups also should agree to come into the arrangement. The fact of life is that the employee groups are not prepared to come into the arrangement agreed upon by the Prime Minister, the 6 Premiers and most employer groups. The Opposition now tries to introduce red herrings such as its call for a national conference to discuss this, that and the other when all that Mr Hawke, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and all the peak councils had to do yesterday was come along and say: Yes, we also think that what the Commonwealth and the 6 Premiers have put forward is a good idea and we will use our best endeavours to go along with it, and there may be some other things we ought to discuss as well’. However, they would not come into the arrangement and that is the important thing. So the whole operation now being indulged in by the Opposition which does not want this plan to succeed in spite of the fact that the electorate wants it to succeed is designed to sabotage the plan. The Opposition drags across the scene irrelevancies such as its call for national conferences on this matter. I do not know what the devil they would talk about. All the Australian Labor Party wants to do is talk, talk and talk but not take any action because it really does not care whether inflation ruins this country.

page 866

QUESTION

STATE TAXATION

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the proposal by the Government to grant certain taxing powers to the States. Is the Minister aware that according to a recent statement by my South Australian colleague, Mr McLeay, in the Adelaide News, South Australians already pay the highest level of tax in Australia. Does the Minister realise that South Australian stamp duty on a $35,000 home is $730 while in New South Wales this State tax is $502? Does he also realise that State land tax rose by up to 900 per cent in South Australia last year while in the other States the increase was negligible? Bearing in mind the greater tax raising capacity of the larger States of New South Wales and Victoria and the already higher imposition placed upon taxpayers in South Australia, does the Federal Government have any plan to offset any financial inequity that may occur to taxpayers in the small States after the introduction of the Federal tax raising reform?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The question is derived from a statement by the Minister for Construction, Mr John McLeay, a person of great veracity and accuracy, so I am sure that what he said is completely true. From a few private observations of my own I believe it is perfectly true that in the federal system, as Senator Carrick has so often said, there is more than one taxing authority. This ought to be understood. It is true that one of the greatest parts of the national Budget is collecting money to be appropriated to the States. It is equally true that the States themselves levy substantial taxes of all kinds, shapes and sizes. I hope that people would know that. It is also true that the taxes vary markedly across the field. It is true that there is a Commonwealth Grants Commission which seeks to equalise opportunity and living standards in the States. The more wealthy States have traditionally helped the less wealthy States. That process will still go on. But it can do nothing but good if people’s attention is directed towards taxation inequity. One set of people- the Australian taxpayers- is taxed by 2 sets of government, Commonwealth and State. The taxpayer ought to be able to be informed of what is the total tax burden. It would be useful in Australia if that device could be further prosecuted, and I hope that it will be by the Opposition as well as by this Government.

page 867

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE: PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Senator BUTTON:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the statement made following the Premiers Conference last week by the Prime Minister on the program PM in which he said that the question of price freezes would be referred to the Prices Justification Tribunal. With respect, I ask the Minister to avoid any waffle in the answer to these 3 questions: Firstly, is it the intention of the Government to amend the Prices Justification Tribunal legislation having regard to the announced wages-prices freeze? Secondly, does the Prime Minister’s statement on this matter imply that there will be a coercive element in the wages-prices freeze in relation to prices or is it, as the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs said in a statement issued yesterday, a voluntary wages-prices freeze? Thirdly, is the coercive element to apply only to wages or is it also intended to apply to prices in the manner in which I indicated?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-If the honourable senator would read the original call by the Prime Minister and the 6 Premiers he would see that the whole operation was voluntary. I thought that was quite clear to everybody.

Senator Georges:

– Why did Fraser change his direction?

Senator WITHERS:

– There has never been a change of direction at all. It was to be a voluntary pause. The honourable senator ought to go back to the document and read it. The trouble with the Opposition is that it starts to talk about coercion.

Senator Button:

– I asked whether there is to be a coercive element in it.

Senator WITHERS:

-As I understood the original call, it was to be a voluntary effort by all in the community. The trade union movement was not even prepared to attempt to do that. Its members started to ask for other things. They were not prepared to come to the conditions precedent before anything else happened. As to whether the Prices Justification Tribunal legislation ought to be amended, that could have been a matter for discussion after the trade union movement had been prepared to join in the call by the Prime Minister and the 6 Premiers. If they are not prepared to come to the initial step, how the devil can they expect the Government to go further at this stage?

Senator BUTTON:

– I have a supplementary question, Mr President. I asked whether, in view of the Prime Minister’s statement that price rises would be referred to the Prices Justification Tribunal, the Prices Justification Tribunal legislation is to be amended. That statement was made by the Prime Minister last Wednesday. I want to know today whether there is Government policy to amend that legislation. The people of Australia are entitled to know whether that is so.

Senator WITHERS:

-The honourable senator ought to know that at question time honourable senators cannot ask questions relating to Government policy.

page 867

QUESTION

SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS TRIBUNALS

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-Can the Minister for Social Security advise whether there is a woman on the Social Security Appeals Tribunal in each Territory or State except Queensland? Can the Minister advise also whether there is currently a vacancy on the Appeals Tribunal in Queensland? If so, has the Minister considered, or will she consider, the appointment of a woman to the Appeals Tribunal in that State? If there is currently no vacancy on the Appeals Tribunal in Queensland, will the Minister consider the appointment of a woman when there is a vacancy in the future?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not able to say whether in every State except Queensland there is a woman on the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Many women are serving on the appeals tribunals. It is a fact that recently there was the death of one of the members of the Appeals Tribunal in Queensland and there is a vacancy on that Appeals Tribunal. Recently I have been appointing additional members to appeals tribunals throughout Australia to enable appeals to be heard as promptly as possible. I certainly can consider additional appointments to tribunals in any of the States if it is felt that they are warranted.

It should be understood that the composition of an appeals tribunal embraces a social welfare worker- a person with experience and qualifications in that field- a lawyer and a departmental officer. But implicit in the question was whether I would consider the appointment of a woman. I certainly would consider the appointment of any person who would be eligible to serve on tribunals in the categories mentioned. As has been found, many women are serving on tribunals at present. With regard to Queensland, I shall be looking to see that a person is found to fill the vacancy recently caused by the death of a member of that tribunal. I shall certainly take into account the remarks made by the honourable senator.

page 868

QUESTION

CHILD NUTRITION

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

-I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, by saying that no doubt the Minister is well aware that adequate nutrition in the early years of life is important if young people are to obtain maximum physical and mental development.

Senator Grimes:

– You must have been starved.

Senator TOWNLEY:

-I thought I would get some smart remark from Senator Grimes. If I was starved he did not get anything. No doubt the Minister is aware also that milk is an excellent nutritional food. I therefore ask: Is the Minister able to say what research into nutrition is being carried out on a national level? Are any efforts being made by the Federal Government to co-ordinate research into nutrition being undertaken by the various universities and State health departments? Finally, are there any plans at this stage to reintroduce the school milk scheme which was stopped- or should I say stopperedby the Labor Government, so unwisely in my opinion?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The question raised by the honourable senator encompassed several specific matters. I believe it would be of wide interest to hear about the co-ordination of research and the level of research into the nutrition of young children in particular that is being undertaken. I suggest that if the question is placed on notice the Minister for Health would be able to supply answers to the specific matters which were raised.

page 868

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS POLICY

Matter of Urgency

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter dated 20 April 1 977 from Senator Harradine:

Dear Mr President,

In accordance with Standing Order 64, 1 give notice that on Thursday, 21 April 1977, I shall move-that in the opinion of the senate the following is a matter of urgency:

The Government’s industrial relations policy and performance present obstacles to the achievement of the cooperative and co-ordinated approach required to overcome the economic problems confronting the nation ‘.

Is the motion supported?

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

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I move:

The motion before the chair concerns probably one of the greatest problems that faces this country internally at this point of time. The motion presupposes that everybody is seized of the view that there is a need for a co-operative and coordinated approach to overcome the economic problems confronting the nation. I have a fist full of statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and every Minister of the present Government to that effect. I am sure there is no need to canvass that proposition. I think we all should be able to subscribe to the view that there is a need for a co-operative and co-ordinated approach to overcome the economic problems confronting the nation. I turn to the first part of the motion which states that the Government’s industrial relations policy and performance are presenting obstacles to the achievement of that co-operation which everybody concedes is required.

I am putting forward this motion because it seems to be the belief of the Prime Minister and of certain other Ministers that the Government’s industrial relations policy has broad acceptance not only by the community but also by certain people within the trade union movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. I refer to the statement made by the Prime Minister on the Monday after Easter when he said words to the effect that extremist left wing trade union officials would condemn the Government’s industrial relations policy but that was only to be expected. I have risen today to advise you, Mr President, and the Senate that the industrial relations policy of the Government is opposed not only by a handful of extremist left wing union officials but also by the broad moderate elements within the trade union movement, specifically as the policy relates to amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the Trade Practices Act. I believe it is necessary for that statement to be made prior to the Government’s solidifying its attitude in respect of the proposed industrial relations bureau and amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Quite a number of people within the trade union movement are prepared to make sacrifices to ensure co-operation and co-ordination to overcome the economic problems that confront the nation. I should like to detail the decision taken by the Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council on 14 April 1977 concerning the Premiers Conference proposals- the wage claims and price increases pause. It reads:

The proposal of the Premiers Conference comes at a time when all sections of the community recognise that a continuation of raging inflation and chronic unemployment will put Australia in a very bad way within months. Faced with a continuance of double figure inflation and record unemployment, some dramatic action is required to reverse the situation before it is too late.

The proposal unanimously endorsed by all State Governments and the Federal Government for a short-term pause in wage claims and price increases could be just the thing to break the psychology of inflation if it receives general support from organisations and individuals within the community.

The President of the ACTU has spoken of the psychology of inflation and the need for it to be overcome as a prerequisite to reining-in inflation and stimulating employment.

Besides attacking the psychology of inflation the proposals if successful must have direct influence on the next Consumer Price Index figures which are a gauge of inflation.

Obviously, if prices are held down then the Consumer Price Index is held down and inflation with it. The proposals cannot be regarded as a panacea for the problems besetting the economy- far from it. Overseas experience seems to indicate that compulsory long-term wage /price freezes result in much bigger wage and price explosions at the re-entry point.

On the other hand a short term wage claim and prices increase pause could be just the circuit breaker needed to break the vicious circle of inflation.

Such a prospect would appeal to rank and file trade unionists rather than the mad scrambling for confetti money wage increases immediately eroded by taxes and made useless by higher price rises.

However, the Council went on:

Greater detail is required on the proposal- particularly what action Governments propose to curtail their own taxes and charges.

Of course that is why the conference is required. The Council continued:

Furthermore, what action is proposed to counter and expose any price increase made during the period of the Premiers’ Conference proposal.

Again a subject for a conference relating to price surveillance. The decision continued:

The success of the proposal relies on its acceptance by business and the Trade Union Movement and Governments. This is the time for a co-ordinated attack on inflation which seriously diminishes the purchasing power of workers and causes unemployment.

The Council made this very important point:

Such a co-ordinated attack requires responsible disciplined co-operation between and within each of the three groups.

We call on the Federal Government as a mark of its faith in the Premiers’ Conference proposal which presupposes a responsible and disciplined approach by central Trade Union and Business/Employer organisations to withdraw the proposed amendments to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

The Council stated that these proposals- that is the amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act proposed by the Government- would prevent unions from acting in a united manner. The Council stated that the proposals were an invitation to irresponsibility and anarchy and would provide loopholes for workers to opt out of their responsibilities for the overall actions of their unions. The Council went on:

In these circumstances and on present knowledge and granted that wages have been recently adjusted by the National Wage Decision or will soon be adjusted by State Decisions we believe the Premiers Conference Proposal would appeal to rank and file unionists and the community and worth a trial in the best interests of the nation.

It will be seen that the Council realised that there needed to be a co-ordinated attempt but it also declared that the proposals of the Commonwealth Government to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act were an invitation to irresponsibility and anarchy.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Did you say that the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Coucil supported it under certain conditions which were never complied with?

Senator HARRADINE:

– Yes that is right. Of course, there is need for the conference for those particular points to come out. The Council declared that the Government’s proposals to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act were an invitation to irresponsibility and anarchy. In a calm and dispassionate way I wish to prove that to you, Mr President, to the Senate and hopefully to the Government.

Firstly, industrial relations in Australia are best served by the encouragement of effective, responsible trade unions working in the best interests of their members and in the encouragement of the members to fully participate in union affairs. Secondly, the power of trade unions to contribute effectively and responsibly to orderly industrial progress depends on the co-ordinated and disciplined action of their members. Thirdly, for many years this has been recognised. The rules of individual trade unions registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act have contained self-disciplinary provisions. Likewise, a central trade union organisation such as the Australian Council of Trade Unions and State Labour Councils have had rules for the conduct and control of industrial disputes with their own internal disciplinary procedures. These procedures are designed and are necessary to achieve the objects of the unions in a united and co-ordinated manner with the least possible disruption.

Over the past few years a combination of factors has led to a decline in responsible unionism on the part of some unions. Australia has witnessed the organised attempts by the procommunist Left to create anarchy, to disregard the effects of irresponsible industrial action on other workers in the community, to flout ACTU rules for the conduct and control of industrial disputes and to turn the trade union movement into a political battering ram by the abuse of the strike weapon for political purposes. Failure to uphold the ACTU and Labour Council disputes rules has itself contributed to the belief of some unions that they can please themselves as to what action they take without regard to the consequences to themselves as ACTU affiliates or to members of other unions.

The sense of anarchy is also fostered by those union officials who, rather than oppose the push for political strikes, take the easy way out by telling their members that it is up to each individual whether he joins the strike, an attitude that is encouraged by the Government’s own legislation. Such weakness attacks the very foundation of the legitimate strike weapon and the trade union movement itself which relies for effectiveness on the precepts ‘unity of strength’ and ‘united we stand; divided we fall’. Encouragement to union members to shed collective responsibility for the actions of the unions as a whole and hide behind their so-called individual rights’ leads to anarchy and allows the organised pro-communists to use their unions and the union movement as a whole for their own domestic and international purposes.

As is often the case, the backlash to that situation is an attack, not on the cause of the problem, but on the institution of unionism itself. The Federal Government has stated that its Bill to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act will enforce obligations and protect individual rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. The proposed legislation is an invitation to irresponsibility. Orderly industrial progress requires that workers meet their obligations to themselves and their fellow workers by joining and participating in the affairs of their appropriate union to ensure that it plays a responsible and constructive role. Yet the Bill to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the IR Bill in shorthand terms, provides loopholes for a worker to opt out of those obligations. Under current legislation the individual right of a proven conscientious objector covered by an award with a preference clause is tested by the payment to Consolidated Revenue of an amount equivalent to union fees, but the proposed legislation would do away with that responsible test which is called the hippocket test. The Bill provides a loophole for individual members to opt out of any industrial action as denned broadly in clause 3 of the Bill. The definition of ‘industrial action’ in clause 3 states:

  1. the performance of work in a manner different from that in which it is customarily performed, or the adoption of a practice in relation to work, the result of which is a restriction or limitation on, or a delay in, the performance of the work or a tendency to restrict, limit or delay the performance of the work; or
  2. a ban, limitation or restriction on the performance of work or on acceptance or offering for work. . . .

Clearly the Government had in mind not that sort of situation but political strike activity. But even here the proposed legislation will enable an individual member to adopt an ‘I’m all right Jack’ attitude on political stoppages thus avoiding his clear obligation to ensure that his union as a whole acts responsibly. Do not let the Government talk too much about what employers have done about political stoppages because maybe I will look into my locker and get documents to show what the Government itself did in respect of one of its intrumentalities to a member of a particular union who decided not to strike during the Medibank stoppage.

The way the Bill is worded even enables individual union members to opt out of any industrial action decided upon by the union and its members, irrespective of whether that industrial action concerns industrial disputes over such vital issues as safety, personal protection, victimisation and the like. It goes further, providing severe penalties on a union which seeks to protect its members from anarchy by recourse to its registered disciplinary rules. The Bill therefore prevents unions implementing their internal disciplinary rules which are designed to ensure a cohesion in policy and co-ordinated orderly industrial progress and from which there is an existing right of appeal by a member.

The general thrust of the Bill therefore can be branded as an invitation to anarchy and irresponsibility in industrial relations. It opens the way for organised extremist groups to manipulate trade unions by enabling members who should be responsible the opportunity to opt out of their obligations. In addition it talks about individual rights but the rights of individual members already enshrined in sections 140, 141 and 143 are to be diluted by the intrusion of the Industrial Relations Bureau between individual members and the court. Under the present legislation individual members have direct access to the court. Under the proposals they must first make a complaint through the Industrial Relations Bureau and they can only go to the court if the Bureau advises the complainant that there is no foundation for complaint. What if a member, for instance under the current section 141, makes an application for the performance and observance of the rules by the officers of his organisation in a certain manner. Under the proposed legislation he must first see the Bureau and make a complaint there. The legislation does not say how long the Bureau has to investigate the complaint. The Bureau may say that there is some substance in the complaint but that it thinks the rules should be observed in a particular way which is not the way in which the members think they ought to be observed. Under those circumstances that denies to the individual member his right under existing legislation to go directly to the Court for redress.

The Government intends to establish an Industrial Relations Bureau to enforce its proposals which, as I have said, are seen to be an invitation to irresponsibility. The proposed establishment of the Bureau can be described only as an unwarranted interference in industrial affairs and an unwarranted and costly bureaucratic encumbrance on the system of conciliation and arbitration. The Bureau will have wide investigative powers and, mark my words, a possibly unconstitutional mix of judicial and arbitral powers. Its personnel will presumably be appointed from public servants inexperienced in union rules and procedures or, probably worse still, from persons experienced in such procedures but with axes to grind. What will happen to all those people appointed in a particular era as inspectors? Such a bureau will be resented by both the employers and the trade unions, not to mention the industrial registries. Clause 15 of the Bill clothes the Court with dragnet consequential order powers which in spirit, if not in law, go beyond the essence of the judicial power of the ascertainment, declaration and enforcement of existing rights and obligations.

Senator John Button was speaking for a wide section of moderate union opinion in the industrial labour movement when he said in the Senate on 3 June 1976, as reported at page 2347 of Hansard, in reference to the Australian Industrial Court, now the Federal Court:

There is a decline in respect in industrial circles for the Industrial Court. There is confusion about its judgments. There is no understanding of where it is going. There is no confidence in approaching that Court seeking justice in an industrial situation not only because of political reasons- it has been a political court in the past- but also because of the calibre of the work done in that Court because it does not consist of specialists in this very difficult and important jurisdiction.

The Government has been advised that the concern for the continuance of the system of union registration and enforcement of rules stems from the meddling by governments with the Conciliation and Arbitration Act since 1972, the confusion caused by judges of the Court in using the absolute discretion given by certain sections of the Act and the very different attitudes which particular judges bring to bear on the same set of facts or, alternatively, on what is their view of the needs of a properly functioning trade union. In those circumstances many unions are questioning the merit of continued registration under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Those unions are not confined to the extreme Left, unions which have traditionally had an attitude that there should be no system of registration. The Bill ‘s amendment to the definition of employee in clause 3, taken together with the proposed amendment to section 132, will leave unprotected, particularly in Victoria and Tasmania, substantial numbers of workers who, while not strictly employees, nevertheless rely on unions for the protection of their interests as workers. I refer, for example, to owner-drivers. There are hundreds and hundreds of owner-drivers who legitimately- this certainly has not been testedare members of the Transport Workers Union in Victoria and Tasmania as a result of the current provisions of section 132 and the definition of employee. Because there is no registration of industrial unions in those 2 States which are thus not covered in the Bill, thousands of workers who are now legitimately union members will be left unprotected if the Bill becomes law. Such illconsidered proposals could lead to greater divisions between Federal and State industrial systems and could force consideration in Victoria and Tasmania of the need for a system of State registration of unions in those 2 States.

The Government has consistently failed to consult with registered industrial organisations affected by the proposed amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Its failure to do so on this occasion and its failure to recognise that there are signs of co-ordinated action within the trade union movement on the part of moderate leaders to ensure responsible actions for orderly industrial progress lead me to the conclusion that the current proposals in the Bill are so much political window dressing and are no substitute for proper legislation based on a true understanding of the position in the industrial arena in Australia.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-We have listened to a speech from Senator Harradine which, I have no doubt, has been carefully prepared by him in order to put forward his proposal. Obviously he relied heavily upon a script and one would need to see the detail of it and to study it in order to give formal appreciation to the various detailed points which he has made. Senator Harradine speaks with some significance on matters of trade union affairs and on industrial relations. His record is such that I for one am anxious to consider his arguments in detail. But today we are discussing this matter on the basis of urgency. Insofar as he has drawn upon 2 measures introduced into the Parliament, namely, the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill and the Trade Practices Bill, no objection is taken by me to the fact that we deal with those matters when they come before us. But Senator Harradine ought to concede to those who have to consider his arguments that unless they are related in detail to the actual provisions, great disadvantage follows. Therefore I do not propose to go into the actual committee discussions of those provisions to which the honourable senator referred in some respect.

I get on to the broad theme of Senator Harradine ‘s proposition, namely, that the Government’s policies and performance are discordant with the general need of co-operation and co-ordination in economic affairs. I think Senator Harradine has placed too much emphasis upon a claim by the trade union movement not to be part of our community but to be a law unto itself, to regulate its own affairs to the exclusion of other people and to be a monopoly in relation to each union, uncontrolled. I believe that that is the fallacy in the submission which Senator Harradine has made. When we come to the first facet of the argument which faces up to the situation which has developed in this last week, we have a general call by the 7 governments of Australia to join in a general freeze, for a limited period of 3 months, of wages, prices and charges. I believe that has been correctly interpreted as producing a response of acceptance from an overwhelming majority of the community.

Until yesterday the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions flatly refused any other attitude than that if a national conference were called of all sections- governments, employers and employees- he would call a conference of trade unions to consider how far they would go to meet the situation. That was no indication of co-operation at all. This has thrown the whole problem of voluntary co-operation into disarray. This is a very destructive initiative coming from the head of the trade union movement. Mr Hawke is disadvantaged by being also the head of the political party which is at present opposing the present Government. Combining political responsibility with industrial responsibility undoubtedly produces confusion in thought. But Mr Hawke maintains that if we do what he or the trade union movement directs then we will have his co-operation. That is his idea of co-operation.

I regret that Senator Harradine has brought into that theme of thought his objections to the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill and to the Trade Practices Bill. I believe that in doing that Senator Harradine, as an independent member of Parliament, has done a disservice to the urgent national demand which, in this instance, is cooperation from all sections of the community irrespective of past measures, past decisions and of Bills in the chamber. He has demanded the withdrawal of legislation as a condition precedent to joining in a national conference. He has conceded that the circumstances demand a dramatic initiative, which he calls the circuit breaker, to produce a psychology so that we get out of the inevitable assumption that with each quarter there should be a general rise in the share of the wealth of the nation in particular sections of the community. We all agree with the idea of a circuit breaker and with trying to restore stability. However, it is most regrettable that anybody or any section of that community thinks that it is relevant or in any way required as a condition to discussion of that problem that legislation of the past should be amended or legislation that is currently proposed should be withdrawn.

That situation stems from an attitude whereby the trade unions consider that they are a law unto themselves and that they are outside the law that other members of the community should observe. I do not imagine that Senator Harradine will divorce himself from the view that trade union power is such that it should have a dominant role in the formulation of industrial legislation. There are others in the trade union movement who say: ‘We shall not be touched by the ordinary legislation. We are a law which will regulate our own world, discipline our own members and dispense justice according to our idea of the administration of the rules as we see them. ‘ That attitude has outgrown its history and its acceptance by the community. It had some legitimacy in its origin when the trade unionist was disadvantaged by the law of conspiracy because he joined in this combination to advantage his interest; but then to claim complete immunity from the law as he has in England since 1 906 and increasingly here since 1928 is a proposition that no community can accept, and the assertion of the community’s rights in this respect is in no way inconsistent with co-operation between and co-ordination of all the interests of the community for the purpose of solving the present crisis.

I do not rely upon my own view of these matters and shall refer to one authority that may commend itself, I hope, to Senator James McClelland. When Dean Roscoe Pound speaks of the immunities of labour unions- they are not the same in the United States of America as they are in Australia but they are very similar with a different but not dissimilar history- he points out in the opening gambit of his treatise:

Immunities relieving particular persons or special classes or groups from the duties and liabilities appointed by law for their fellow men have been regarded from of old as odious. But because of a deep seated feature of human nature they have been a fairly constant phenomenon in legal history.

He refers to the church, to the state, to landlords and to commercial magnates gathering together in monopolies and then goes on to expound with all his understanding and knowledge of the law and objectivity in regard to politics that the immunities of the labour unions are unique and have to be corrected.

A whole series of authorities in recent years, particularly in the last 10 years, have pointed out how the unions having this monopolistic power to dislocate industry under the name of what Senator Harradine referred to as the right to strike and, presumably since he objects to the Trade Practices Bill, the right to employ secondary boycotts in enforcement of the right to strike, claim the right to dislocate the economy of the country to the great injury of other sections of the community. It was Mr Whitlam no less who in the last year of his Government was forced to admit that the union abuse of power was the crippling feature of his effort to regain stability in the economy. None of us will decry the efforts that were made by his Minister for Labour and Immigration, Senator James McClelland, in the last three or four desperate months of the Whitlam era to try to curb the abuse of the use by trade unions of political pretext in order to create demands for higher charges and dislocation in industry. The pressure which that exerted upon particular sections of the economy was one of the chief forces that was artificially creating the upsurge in the price level which is, of course, inflation. Mr Whitlam said on this subject that excessive union wage demands had caused Australia ‘s unemployment and inflation crisis. That was said on 26 January 1975 in Adelaide. He also said that inflation today was indubitably, primarily, and almost solely due to wage claims and increases. He said:

The cause of unemployment is, frankly, the excessive wage demands. You cannot blame Vietnam for the inflation in the Western world still. You cannot blame the oil crisis for the inflation in Australia. You cannot blame the takeovers and the currency rates for inflation in Australia now. You have to place the blame on wage claims.

That is because the unions add to their legitimate union strength and force the other coercive effort to call a strike or secondary boycott and dislocate the economy and artificially create an upsurge in what their opponents are prepared to yield rather than have that dislocation. It is that factor in the trade union movement that the Government feels needs correction and that is the theme, purpose and thrust behind the 2 Bills to which reference has been made. The Trade Practices Bill precludes action by way of secondary boycott to enforce illegitimate union demands. I believe that it has now been modified so that it does not prohibit the secondary boycott in relation to claims for industrial wages or conditions.

Whether or not I am right in that information- it has not been given to me officially or preciselywho is going to stand here and say that a union engaging in a boycott for political purposes is to be entitled not merely to bring its pressure to bear upon its own employing enterprise but to bring pressure to bear to cut off supplies by other enterprises assisting that primary enterprise? I think that Senator Harradine, in protesting against that and saying that there is a section of the trade union movement which would regard that as an inducement to anarchy, is not speaking the language that we know. It is being completely unreal.

There are 3 facets to the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill. Senator Harradine referred to one of them and I have not time to make anything other than a passing reference to it. He referred to the capacity that the Bill gives to a union member to report his dissent from industrial action. That is a matter for legitimate argument and I understand Senator Harradine ‘s reference to it.

Senator Harradine:

– To opt out.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I am speaking of his right to dissent and to communicate his dissent to the Industrial Relations Bureau and for it to have the dissent communicated to and published by the Commission. I am referring to that. Senator Harradine says that that undermines the solidarity of the union. I can understand that argument and that has been basic to the union movement. But the question is whether that so-called complete solidarity- if the Opposition was speaking of a commercial enterprise it would be called complete coercive monopoly- has to be modified. That is the first aspect. The second aspect is the right of a conscientious objector to refuse to be a member of a union and to require a union to work notwithstanding that. That is a matter of very earnest debate. There again it is a question of whether the individual right should be recognised unless and until it is shown to represent a substantial attack upon a union’s legitimate strength. If that cannot be shown, I submit that the objection to that aspect of the Bill fails.

Then we come to the Industrial Relations Bureau. If Senator Harradine is correct in interpreting that to be placed in substitution for the complainant’s individual right, it needs consideration. My understanding of the Bill is that it is not in substitution for the individual right; it is supplementary to it. Further, not only does the individual trade unionist- or the individual union-have a right to complain but if a unionist needs the assistance he can report to the IRB which will add its assistance to any energy that he can put forward. How in the name of fortune can a national Labor Relations Board in America, which combines functions additional to those and which has grown in history to be a prounion body, be complained of in that respect while this body is put up as an ombudsman to whom appeals can be made by both sides for redress? It can exercise its influence and if it cannot achieve proper redress by co-operation and conciliation, then it can test the matter in court. Who can say that there is any objection to a concept to give either one side of industry or the other more protection under their legal system?

I come to the aspect that Senator Harradine advanced, somewhat alarmingly, that there was a growing opinion in the trade union movement questioning the merit of continuing their registration in the system. I never thought that I would see the day when Senator Harradine- I expected it from other quarters of the opposite camp- would question the undoubted comprehensive and significant advantages to the trade union movement of registration in the arbitration system of Australia. It was through the foresight of the trade unionists that that system was so early established after Federation. It has grown as a system in which they have unique powers of enforcing any benefits that are awarded to them. If they adopted the theory and practice of arbitrationthis co-ordination and consultation process- instead of engaging in destructive strikes their benefits would be immeasurably better. To suggest that we would reach the stage where unions would consider it in their interests to deregister from that system and expose themselves to the law of the jungle and to the chaos of the strike weapon is deplorable.

Therefore, can we not discuss all these issues here as a matter of purposeful debate and take a week, if you like, to go through the clauses of the Bill? Let us hammer them out for the purpose of inducing everybody in industry and in the community to see the outstanding benefits, both of the present arbitration system and its registration and the improvements that are being proposed. There are provisions in the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill bearing specifically upon registration whereby the court is given power to deregister a union, not only for the eight or nine grounds which the present Act provides but also for the abuse of any activity in the course of interstate trade or in the course of public service. That shows that, far from the Government feeling that deregistration would ever be considered an advantage by a union, it is considered as one of the warning signals that unions should observe before they enter upon the sort of action to which I have briefly referred which can be considered as inimical to the public interest. I have tried to put my point of view not on any rigid political hard line basis but on a basis whereby, if there is concern, we should discuss it at the proper time. Any suggestion that the trade union movement will not join in any cooperative, co-ordinated action which the national crisis now demands unless legislation is withdrawn is quite unreasonable.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I find it quite incredible that anyone should suggest, as Senator Wright has suggested, that the unions would treat any proposal which emanated from this Government with anything but wary mistrust. The best example I can think of is this wage-price freeze charade which we have been treated to this week. I remind Senator Wright and other honourable senators that what the Premiers bought was a voluntary freeze, not a compulsory freeze. Yet last Sunday, a couple of days after they had reached this agreement, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) sent to each of the Premiers a telex which made it quite clear that he was attempting to turn their agreement about a voluntary freeze into a compulsory freeze. He submitted to the Premiers the text of what the Federal Government proposed to put before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which was an invitation to the Commission compulsorily to freeze the wages of the work force of this country. It was only when he was caught out in this manoeuvre that he back-tracked and admitted that the Premiers had a point.

Then we had the example of the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party, Mr Sinclair, immediately jumping in to protect the people whom he represents and pointing out that a great number of items could not be frozen. We then had examples like the Managing Director of the Leyland Motor Corporation of Australia saying that he certainly was not going to take any notice of a request for a voluntary freeze. The unions were left in a position of not knowing just what was to be frozen. So Mr Hawke came down here and had a brief and apparently acrimonious conference with the Prime Minister in which Mr Hawke suggested that a conference should be held to clear up precisely that point, that is, what was going to be frozen. But no, the unions were asked to buy a pig in a poke. Even though the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, when it met last week, had commended the proposal of the Australian Council of Trade Unions for a summit conference, Mr Fraser would have none of it. He sent the unions away, refusing to hold the conference which they suggested.

This discloses the true purpose, as far as Mr Fraser is concerned, of the so-called wages and prices freeze. It was merely to back the unions into a corner where they could not possibly accept his proposal for a freeze without selling out their members and so he could then say to the public, in the hope that they would be gullible enough to fall for it: ‘There you are, the sole responsibility for the continuation of inflation rests with the unions’. Let us look at the grand strategy of Mr Fraser which is gradually emerging. I suggest that his industrial policy is a mixture of machiavellianism and stupidity. The first is exemplified by the freeze, which I have just discussed very briefly as I have limited time, which was nothing but a public relations exercise to fit the blame onto the unions and also to throw a smoke screen around his own bankruptcy as an economic manager. It is exemplified also by his legislation, which is a combination of machiavellianism and stupidity.

How can the Prime Minister expect the unions to trust him when he introduced into the Parliament the legislation which has been discussed so ably and in such detail by Senator Harradine, first of all in relation to this misconceived monster, an Industrial Relations Bureau? The purpose of the Industrial Relations Bureau is to create a third arm of government which will do precisely what the employers have learned is counter-productive and of which they will have no part, that is, to ask a court to impose penalties on the unions for industrial actions. The employers have had their fingers burned on many occasions in using these sanctions. The last notable occasion was in 1969. It will be recalled that in 1968 the Arbitration Commission handed down a judgment in the metal trades case which came to be known as the absorption judgment, in which it was suggested that over-award payments would be absorbed in the rises that the Commission granted. This created great indignation among the unions and there was a rash of strikes.

The employers did what Mr Fraser now proposes to do: They rushed to what was then known as the Commonwealth Industrial Court and had fines imposed on all the unions involved in the disputes. Finally, a unionist was gaoled and there was industrial chaos. What the employers were concerned about was keeping the wheels of industry turning. They make no profits when people are out of work in thousands because they are upset or indignant. So the employers backed down and the Commission backed down. A formula was found to erase the notion of absorption, which was seen to be unjust, and peace ensued after that. Ever since then the employers have learned the lesson that these sorts of draconian measures just do not work. Evidently Mr Fraser has not learned this lesson. The purpose of his Industrial Relations Bureau is to have an arm of the executive government which will barge in where angels fear to tread and do again the mischief which the inexperienced employers did in 1969 and which they do not do now because they have learned their lesson.

The unions were asked to trust a government which turns the clock back in this way, to cooperate with a government which is backward enough to think that this is the correct approach to industrial relations. This Industrial Relations Bureau will be clothed with the right for unprecedented interference in the internal affairs of unions. Before this Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill is debated in this place, I invite all honourable senators to read the small print. For instance, it allows- it encourages- unionists to become informers on their own unions. It revives all the discredited penalties under the euphemistic term ‘consequences’. Senator Wright has the gall or the naivety to refer to activities of this kind as being ombudsman-like activities. I think that the categorisation that the unions have given to this body is the more correct one: They refer to it as an industrial police force.

I think Senator Harradine correctly has shown that there already exists in the legislation ample protection for individual rights in the form of section 140 and section 141, which have been availed of by unionists over the years to protect themselves from any acts of tyranny by union officials. But under the guise of protecting individual rights, the legislation which the unions are asked to see as containing nothing sinister encourages people not to join unions. I invite honourable senators to examine a new section which is proposed to be inserted into the legislationthat is, proposed new section 144- which greatly widens the grounds upon which people can refuse to join unions. I ask the question: If it is thought fair to exempt people from any obligation to join unions should they not be exempted also from the benefits which are won for them by the unions which they refuse to join?

The legislation also contains invitations to unionists and to people who do not join unions to scab during a strike and exaggerated protection is given to people who take this action. I make bold to suggest that laws will not be sufficient to enforce a desire on the part of the Government to encourage people to scab, because the odium which attaches to a man who declines to obey a majority decision of his fellows in a situation like that will be sufficient deterrent to prevent people from taking this extreme course. Then, of course, despite Senator Wright’s assurance that the trade practices legislation is being trimmed down, we have the threat of an amendment to the Act which will allow the Government to impose fines of as much as $50,000 on individuals who take part in industrial action. These are the measures introduced by a Government which invites the unions to trust it blindly in the matter of a wages and prices freeze and which will not even discuss the details of such a freeze.

I suppose the greatest example we have of the stupidity of the Government’s industrial policy is contained in the new grounds for deregistration which are contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill. Senator Wright expressed horror that a union would think of cancelling its registration. If he and the Government had any knowledge of the history of industrial legislation and industrial life in this country they would recall the history of the airlines industry. Up to 1959 there was an Australian Air Pilots Association which was registered in the Federal Court. The pilots decided that they were not getting a good enough deal from the Commission and they resigned en masse from that organisation. They then regrouped into an outfit known as the Australian Federation of Air Pilots which did not seek registration. This Government which now thinks it can punish a union by deregistering it, showed what it thought of having a union outside the umbrella of the industrial laws in 1967 when it went to the trouble of setting up a Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal which had jurisdiction even over the unregistered body. So much for the proposition that deregistration is some sort of punishment!

Let us take a more recent example. The Builders Labourers Federation was deregistered a couple of years ago as some sort of punishment. Does anybody think that that humbled Norman Gallagher and his cohorts? Was there suddenly a great onset of light and harmony into the building industry? Of course not. The builders labourers did not give a damn about their union being deregistered. I suggest that manifested in this legislation is a total unreality and a total lack of grasp of what industrial life is about. Another ground- the ground merely of engaging in industrial activity- is now enough to ensure deregistration of a union. For a union that is powerful enough and a union that has muscle enough, that is a punishment which it can shrug off lightly and without care. It will cost the Government much more dearly than it will cost the union. Yet, in order to make it appear that the legislation which the Government is introducing is even more draconian than it needs to be, we get this additional ground for the deregistration of a union. I say that these are the actions of people who know nothing about the realities of industrial life. But more than that, a close reading of these provisions which have not reached us yet- I understand that they will be allowed to lie on the table of the House of Representatives for a few weeks in order to allow people to give their opinion of them- will reveal that these are the measures of a government which then turns to the unions and says: ‘Trust us to look after your interests as well as the interests of the rest of society’. I suggest that the greatest crime to date of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser)- I fear that there are more ahead from him- is that he has destroyed the national consensus and has lost all right to be trusted by the unions. I believe that the public will see through his shoddy manoeuvres of recent weeks and that they will lay the blame where it belongs- not on the unions but squarely at the feet of this incompetent and dishonest Government.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– I rise to speak to the motion before the Senate which states:

That the Government’s industrial relations policy and performance present obstacles to the achievement of the cooperative and co-ordinated approach required to overcome the economic problems confronting the nation.

I think I should begin my remarks by saying that it seems a shame that Senator James McClelland, who revealed himself as such a responsible and determined Minister in his particular area in the last months of the Whitlam regime, should in opposition, suddenly become concerned mainly with directing his verbose fluency towards a measure of bitterness rather than adopting a constructive approach to this problem. That sort of attitude will destroy whatever this Government or any government tries to do and it will also destroy what the Australian people want to happen. It seems a shame that that should be the tenor of this debate on a motion introduced by Senator Harradine into the Senate today. It is my conviction that rather than present obstacles to the economic recovery of this country the industrial relations policies, the attitudes and, indeed, the performance of this

Government provide the very platforms from which co-operative and co-ordinated approaches to the economic problems can and must be taken.

It is essential that industrial relations be a matter that is properly dealt with by any government if proper control of the cost structure is to be achieved and if the level of productivity in this country is to be increased once again. It is well known in this country and in other countries that industrial disputes are perhaps the greatest single determinant of the cost structure and are certainly the greatest menace to productivity. The reduction of inflation and an improvement in the employment figures in any country are built around productivity. This Government has been struggling for some 16 or 17 months with the paramount problem of inflation. In that context, we have to review, amongst other things, industrial relations. I believe it is quite simple and quite proper that we should point out that the industrial relations policy that we put to the Australian people more than 2 years ago contains a capacity to develop a proper measure of restraint and a proper measure of direction in the area of productivity. We have, as a government, sought to do this in a number of areas. We have sought very definitely to reduce our deficit which is, perhaps, the most important area in the fight against continuing and developing inflation. We have sought to increase productivity. We have sought to increase, through incentives, the production capacity of Australia which has gone so far off the rails in recent years- a productive capacity which was a negative figure for the first time in our history only a year or two ago and which today is running at a plus figure of about 4 per cent.

I believe that it is important in a debate such as this that we should recall some of the things that have been said. Senator Wright recalled earlier today some of the comments made by Mr Whitlam when he was the Leader of the Labor Government. In Adelaide in 1975 he quite clearly stated that wages were the basic and most significant cause of spiralling inflation and consequent unemployment in this country. Of course Mr Crean, who was one of his several Treasurers, said so clearly that one man’s wage rise was another man’s job. If we examine the negotiations which have been taking place over the last few days and which hopefully will continue to go on, we find that constant reference has been made to the need for a tax cut to be built into any sort of negotiated peace or understanding. I think we are largely avoiding for some reason or other the fact that a tax cut is already significantly built into this economy. As from 1 July this year, the personal income tax indexation will involve a reduction of $ 1,050m in personal income tax. This is a significant tax cut to have occurred within 18 months of a government’s coming to office. The 1976 Budget was the first Budget since 1972 in which indirect taxes were not increased.

I refer the Senate to the words of the British Labour Prime Minister Mr Callaghan. One may well think it is Mr Whitlam speaking when I read the first sentence. Mr Callaghan said just recently:

We used to think that you could just spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists and that insofar as it ever did exist, it worked by injecting inflation into the economy.

Those were the decisions reached and the opinions expressed recently by the British Labour Prime Minister, Mr Callaghan who, unfortunately for him and his Party, has probably come to that realisation too late. His slender majority was recently made even more slender when a former Labour 1 1 000-vote majority was converted to a 2000-vote Conservative majority in a recent by-election. What I really want to ask as a result of what Mr Callaghan has said is: Why should Australians be so slow to learn from what has happened and is happening in countries like Britain? Why should we plunge ourselves unnecessarily into the sort of morass that Britain has been involved in for so many years? There are obvious ways out of that and obvious ways in which Australians need not be involved in that sort of circumstance. Indeed one of the ways out of that situation relates to industrial relations, and that is what this debate is all about.

The industrial relations policy of this Government was clearly stated almost 2 years ago. It stated that every member of the community has rights and obligations. It sought that rights should be protected and that obligations should be met. It recognised that the community has rights just as the community has obligations and that an industrial relations framework must be relevant to those rights and obligations. It was abundantly clear I believe in those days- even Senator Harradine would have accepted thisthat they were proper and correct principles for industrial policy and relationship. Quite clearly the Australian electorate endorsed that circumstance overwhelmingly. At the time the Australian electorate voted on the policies and attitudes in industrial relations that are the matter of this debate today. The electorate gave overwhelming approval to the implementation of those policies. To those forces in this country whether unions, Labor Oppositions or whatever which opposed the implementation of policies that were so unanimously endorsed Australians owe no thanks at all.

I refer now to the damage of 3 years of socialist experiment in which perhaps somewhat ironically we have seen the highest level of industrial unrest in recent years, uncontrolled spiralling of wages and prices, a constantly diving level of productivity, a deficit rise from $700m to $4,000m, and unemployment and inflation rise to quite desperate and unacceptable levels. These were the hallmarks of that era. These same people, at least those at political and union leadership level, who caused that damage now seem to be intent on one thing only, and that is stopping the implementation of a framework of policy in industrial relations that could well see this country rise out of the mire into which it had fallen in the social experiment era. I say that with a reasonable reference to the situation today. There is a lot of distortion and confusion about what has in fact been happening.

The facts are that within 18 months or less we have succeeded in some real measure in reducing the rate of inflation in this country. We have seen the growth rate of this community move from a negative figure to a plus 4 per cent figure. We have seen a rise in the profit levels of at least some operations in this country for the first time in a number of years. Although that is somewhat derided I make the point that unless profits rise in a reasonable and proper manner it does not matter what sort of society a person lives in, whether a fascist dictatorship, a communist dictatorship, a socialist Utopia- wherever one finds that- or the hardest of all institutions, a democracy, as we have in this country. It does not matter very much what we are. Unless we succeed in raising profits to proper and reasonable levels we will not succeed in getting out of the sort of morass in which we have found ourselves in this country in the last 3 to 5 years.

I make the point that the industrial relations policies which are being debated before the Senate today are a sort of legislation which has within it the protection of the individual the protection of groups of individuals, the right of people to find, not necessarily as individuals, some sort of representation in the courts, and the right of people to object to matters which they believe are not relevant to their freedom as members of a free society. We must be aware that freedom in this country as anywhere alse must be related to discipline. One would expect Australians to be concerned with discipline and with law. Whether a person is in an industrial circumstance or a commercial circumstance, without a measure of discipline no freedom will exist. That sort of discipline is part of what our legislation seeks to provide, not necessarily its imposition but at least its provision. As time passes by I say once again that I believe we are not providing obstacles but platforms for the improved economic conditions in this country.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-Senator Scott said that the industrial relations policy of the present Government was clearly stated 2 years ago. I agree with a lot of what he says about that. The policy was clearly stated in the November-December election campaign in 1975. The then caretaker Prime Minister promised quite clearly, without any equivocation at all, that the system of wage indexation then in operation would be continued under a LiberalCountry Party Government if it were elected. That promise was broken 2 1/2 months later in February 1976. Just 2Vi months after it was made, the promise of the Fraser caretaker Government to the trade unions and the working people of the Australian community was broken. When the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) talks in that pious way about what this Government promised in relation to industrial relations that is the key. That is the first promise that was broken. It has been continually broken in national wage cases ever since.

The motion before the Senate, moved by Senator Harradine, relates carefully the failings of the present Government’s economic policies in the area of industrial relations. In so doing it is quite right. The Government’s industrial relations policy and performance present obstacles to the achievement of a co-operative approach to the economic problems. One could turn the motion around the other way and debate it with equal fervour. The Government’s failure to achieve its promises in the economic field bears very heavily on its industrial relations performance. If there comes out of this debate nothing more than an understanding by Senator Scott and other honourable senators that there is a strong and crucial relationship between sound industrial relations and the economic situation in this country, Government senators will have taken a big step forward. It seems to me that the whole question of a crisis of confidence in industrial relations was put very well by Mr Street, the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on 9 September 1975. He said:

Communication is at the hean of industrial relations, because industrial relations are fundamentally human relations. It is obvious that if communication breaks down then industrial relations break down.

That was his view of what it was all about as a then shadow Minister, shortly to become a caretaker Minister and then to become the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in this country. From the beginning of the period when this Government came to office, that statement of philosophical principle as I understand it to be, made by Mr Street, has been departed from. It has been departed from in failure to consult with the trade unions about amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act; in failure to consult in connection with the so-called secret ballot legislation; in failure to consult in relation to the proposed amendments to the trade practices legislation; and in the series of broken promises in relation to the Commonwealth Government’s attitude to wage indexation.

Of course, in its present economic difficulties the Government, as Liberal conservative governments have done throughout the history of the Australian Parliament, is seeking to find a scapegoat for the failure of its economic policies, closely related, as I said, to industrial relations. It is at this point that the Government has felt that it is perhaps appropriate to try to find that scapegoat in the trade union movement. It has not had much success today. Yesterday leaders of the trade union movement came to meet the Prime Minister of this country. They asked him what he had in mind by the proposed wages and prices freeze. The proposition was put to the Prime Minister by the unions that there should be a national conference on this issue and that there should, in return for a wage freeze, be taxation cuts of a specific kind which have been indicated as being necessary by the Australian Council of Trade Unions for a number of months. The Prime Minister rejected out of hand those proposals for tax cuts and a national conference. Today the Liberal Premier of Victoria, Mr Hamer, has advised the Prime Minister that he agrees with Mr Hawke that there should be a national conference of all concerned parties and that there should be tax cuts. Mr Hamer has been saying that for a long time. It is said that the devil can cite the scriptures for his own purpose. I suppose that saying could be reversed. I do not normally find myself citing what Mr Hamer has said, but if he does not have a reputation for making things happen he at least has a reputation for making the right noises in politics which indicate that he understands the importance in a modern democratic society of trying to reach consensus rather than confrontation.

That is what the conservatives of this world never seem to learn. During the last period of Liberal government in Australia penal provisions were in operation under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. They failed. Liberal governments did not try to proceed with them after it was apparent that they were failures. Employer organisations did not try to proceed with them after it became clear that those sorts of provisions were a failure. The Heath Government in the United Kingdom tried the same sort of tactics. I remind honourable senators- I hope I do not send any chills up any spines- what happened to the Heath Government because of that particular approach. That approach involves a lesson which should have been learnt as long ago as 1906. It was in 1906, following the Taff Vale judgment in Britain when it was decided that unions could be sued and were liable for damages- and an award of damages was imposed on the railways unions in Britain- that the Trade Disputes Act, which made union funds exempt from claims for damages, was passed. It is extraordinary that in 1977 an Australian conservative government does not even understand the historical and lasting significance of a judgment given as long ago as 1906 on the very question which re-emerges today in the Industrial Relations Bureau legislation and the proposed amendments to the trade practices legislation.

I shall offer a comment from the Melbourne Age of Tuesday, 22 March, about what the amendments to the Trade Practices Act would mean in the Australian industrial relations scene. It said:

It would create an unprecedented form of statutory civil liability on a special class of individuals whose only distinctive characteristic is that they are employees . . .

It would not be too melodramatic to say that the provision would return trade unions to something like the political position they occupied in mid- 1 9th Century England.

I do not take the matter back that far. I take it back only to 1 906 because that is more within the capacity of Government senators to remember than the mid- 19th century. That was a comment by a leading Australian newspaper on the proposed amendments to the trade practices legislation. The proposed amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act relating to the Industrial Relations Bureau have been dealt with thoroughly by Senator Harradine. The only point I shall make is that experience has shown people who know something about these matters that this type of legislation is counter-productive. One could not in 1906- one cannot in 1977- run a society which purports to be a democratic society on the basis of coercion of a very substantial section of that society.

Senator Wright:

– That is completely contrary to the Wilson Industrial Relations Bill.

Senator BUTTON:

-With the greatest respect, Senator, it is not completely contrary to Wilson’s industrial relations legislation. I do not know whether the honourable senator is talking about ex-Prime Minister Wilson or the present Prime Minister, Mr Callaghan. It does not matter much.

Senator Wright:

– I was referring to Prime Minister Wilson of 1970.

Senator BUTTON:

-The point about Prime Minister Wilson of 1970 is that there was no coercion in the legislation finally adopted. The element of coercion was not present; what was present was an element of consensus. Senator Wright does not have to go back to England to understand that. He only has to go back to 1975 in Australia where, with all the difficulties -

Senator Wright:

– You went back to 1906 in England.

Senator BUTTON:

-I went to England in 1906 because I knew that a reference to 1906 would be fresh in Senator Wright’s mind. It was in the period of his heyday as a student of these matters. That was my one and only reason for doing so.

Senator Wright:

– Point out the ambiguity to Senator Devitt who is laughing. You know I have studied it very much.

Senator BUTTON:

-I point out to Senator Wright that one really only needs to go back to 1975 in Australia when, admittedly in a fragile way, a government of this country, the Labor Government, was working on the basis of wage indexation towards a consensus with the union movement. I admit it was fragile.

Senator Wright:

– Social contract?

Senator BUTTON:

-The honourable senator might use the expression ‘social contract’ but I prefer to use the word ‘consensus’. The words social contract’ would remind the honourable senator that he really was talking about the Wilson Government when there was a social contract and not the element of coercion to which I was just referring. The point I was making about this in general was that conservatives never learn on these issues and I suppose that Senator Wright, who interjects a lot, is more at fault than others because he has been a conservative for much longer than a number of other honourable senators on the Government side. I suppose he is particularly sensistive about it all for that reason.

Following the wage-price freeze which was announced last week by the 7 ‘political leaders’- I put that in inverted commas- of this country, there was a meeting yesterday between the Government and the unions. In the context of a record of broken promises, a record of total abandonment of the philosophy which Mr Street, as Opposition spokesman on industrial relations, put forward in 1975; a total abandonment of promises in relation to wage indexation and other matters in 1975, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) rejected the proposals put by the unions and invited the unions to trust this Government. What the unions were saying, simply, was this: ‘You, Mr Prime Minister, say there is going to be a voluntary price squeeze and a voluntary wage squeeze. If we are going to be the volunteers we want to know what the other volunteers are going to do ‘. There really was not much help from the Government on that question as Mr Hamer, the Premier of Victoria, clearly indicated in the statement of his attitude today. The legitimate question which wage earners are entitled to ask is: ‘Are we going to get anything for it but the possibility of being fined if we go on strike to protect our interest in relation to these matters?’ It is as simple as that.

This wage-price freeze is not something which is condemned in principle by the Opposition but it is condemned as being something which is typical of this Government in the sense that it is poorly thought out, poorly conceived and off the top of the Prime Minister’s head. As a South Australian member of Parliament representing the Liberal Movement put it yesterday, it is the sort of thing which will float out of the window in a couple of weeks. When it floats out of the window, as it will do because it was ill thought out, ill conceived and so on, the Government again will be confronted with the failure of its economic policies. It will come back here in a fortnight’s time having to face up to that after this fiasco has been debated in the Senate for a couple of weeks.

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

-Now that we have finished the history lesson and the rhetoric I would like to get back to the subject of the debate which relates to the Government’s policy and performance in industrial relations, and particularly to co-operation. Senator Harradine presented a very thought-provoking speech on this subject. I suppose that the first part of the Government’s policy that he attacked relates to proposed section 45D of the Bill to amend Trade Practices Act. I draw the attention of the Senate to the Government’s announcement on 5 April as follows:

The Government has confirmed its earlier decision to include a provision in the Act dealing with anti-competitive secondary boycotts by employees. The precise terms of this provision were still being considered.

I believe there is no doubt that Senator Harradine also would concur in opposing secondary boycotts, as does the vast majority of the Australian people. In my view the Government can co-operate no more than in expressing its view that the terms of the provision have not yet been finalised; in fact the Minister concerned has stressed on a number of occasions that it was never intended that the legislation would go beyond prohibiting secondary boycotts.

Senator Harradine ‘s major criticism seemed to me to be that the Government’s legislation does not require compulsory unionism, yet that in fact was the very first point under the heading of Organisations’ in the Government’s policy statement issued prior to the election in December 1975. That stated very clearly that every employee has a right to join a union and equally that every employee has the right not to do so. Senator Harradine attacks that provision in the Bill. I understood and appreciated his reference to the hip pocket test- his suggestion that conscientious objectors should pay into Consolidated Revenue an amount equal to annual dues. That is what the hip pocket test is all about and I take that reference on board. Similarly I take on board his concern that unions cannot discipline their members. Proposed section 5a(1)(§) of the Bill provides that an organisation:

  1. . shall not impose, or threaten to impose, a penalty, forfeiture or disability of any kind upon a member of the organisation . . .

    1. with the intent to coerce the member to join in industrial action; . . .

Senator Harradine attacked that provision on the basis that it means that in some circumstances, for example, where there is a strike- I cannot think of the term where just a few of the unionists strike without the union organisation approving the strike -

Senator O’Byrne:

– A heap of scabs.

Senator LEWIS:

– Yes, a heap of scabs. But a union in those circumstances would not be able to discipline its members. Under the Bill it would not be able to discipline its members in forcing them to go on strike, and similarly it would not be able to discipline its members who go on what might be called an unlawful strike. I believe that they are some of the objections which he raised in his speech. I take them on board but I ask him this question: Why has he not put those objections to the Government? After all, that is why the Bill is lying on the table.

Senator Harradine:

-The Government will not answer my questions. I have asked them for about 3 months solid.

Senator LEWIS:

– The honourable senator could not have been asking questions for 3 months solid because the Bill has not been on the table for that long.

Senator Harradine:

– Not on this Bill but on the industrial Bill.

Senator LEWIS:

- Senator Harradine has no criticism of the major thrust of the Bill which seeks the establishment of the Industrial Relations Bureau. Senator Harradine said that he opposes it, but as far as I was able to gather from his speech his only criticism was that in certain circumstances a worker may lose his right of appeal. As I understand his proposal, if a worker goes to the Bureau with a complaint and the Bureau approves the complaint, but for different reasons, the worker may be deprived of his right of appeal. As far as I was able to ascertain from Senator Harradine ‘s speech, that was his only major criticism of the legislation in relation to the Industrial Relations Bureau. I do not know whether that criticism is correct. Again I ask: Why not go to the Government with that proposition? After all, that is precisely what the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) said in his second reading speech. For the benefit of the Senate, I shall read what he said:

However, the Government does not purport to have found the perfect answer. For this reason, and because of the fundamental importance of the legislation, it believes that there is a need for time to be given not only for the members of Parliament to give the proposed legislation their objective consideration, but also for the principal parties to industrial relations- the peak councils of the employer organisations and trade unions, individual trade unions and individual employers and, more importantly, the community at large- to examine the contents of the Bill and to be able to make their views known to the Government.

In my opinion, that is co-operation by the Government. I put to Senator Harradine that if he has views of this nature about the Bill he ought to put them in writing and at length to the Government.

Senator Georges:

– You must be kidding. What is this place for? We could stay home and write letters.

Senator LEWIS:

– That may be so. I have put a number of submissions already to the Government on the Bill. I have no doubt that many others have. Senator Harradine could if he wished. The Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council could. We did not hear what the other Trades and Labour Councils had to say about the Bill. That is in relation to the Government’s policy.

Let us look at the Government’s performance. We must look at the number of strikes that have taken place since this Government has been in power. In 1974 nearly 6.3 million industrial working days were lost. In 1976 nearly 3.8 million working days were lost. That is a very substantial reduction. Of those 3.8 million, 2.1 million were due to the Medibank strike. In other words, 55 per cent of the working days lost in 1976 were due to one strike. The figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics for January 1977 show that the number of working days lost in January 1977 was 28 400. That is the lowest number for January for the past 8 years. The average number of days per worker involved in the working days lost were: in 1973, under Labor, 3.3; in 1974, 3.1; in 1975, 2.5; and in 1976, 1.7.

Senator Georges:

– You do not need the legislation then, do you?

Senator LEWIS:

– We do not need the legislation. Clearly the Government’s policies have been working.

Senator Georges:

– Why did you bring down the legislation?

Senator LEWIS:

– Because the Government was given a very substantial mandate, when it was returned to office, to bring in precisely this legislation. This legislation was anticipated in speeches by Government candidates prior to the election. The Government was returned with an overwhelming majority. A senator in this Chamber has said to me: ‘If you can put these submissions in writing, why bother to come into this chamber?’ There will be a very substantial opportunity to debate this Bill in the chamber in due course. The point is that the Government is endeavouring to co-operate as much as it can with everyone concerned about industrial relations in Australia. It is clear that today Senator Harradine, who has much to contribute to this subject, has used this chamber and its procedures to pre-empt that debate and, in effect, to try to bring on a debate about a Bill which is not before the Senate. I put to him that I shall do my best to consider the matters which he has raised today, to discuss them with the Minister and to do what I can to ensure that the legislation is the best that this Government can bring forward.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

-This urgency motion provides an opportunity for the Senate to examine in some depth, although rather briefly, the Government’s industrial relations policy and performance as it presents obstacles to the achievement of the co-operative and co-ordinated approach required to overcome the economic problems confronting the nation. I shall attempt to express my views about this in 2 ways. The first relates to what I describe as the overt actions of the Government. They are rather clear, at least in part, insofar as it has produced legislation in the form of amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which would introduce what has been described as the Industrial Relations Bureau. I do not propose to canvass that aspect because I think that sufficient has been said about that by my colleagues. There are also the subsequent amendments, which I understand are still being prepared, to the Trade Practices Act which would affect the operations of trade unions. That is one aspect. The more important and much more sinister considerations, I think, are what I describe as the covert acts of this Government which certainly impede and prejudice any likelihood of the sort of cooperation which is critically essential for the establishment of relationships between the 2 major ingredients in our economy which would enable capital and labour to find a way through the economic morass in which this country finds itself at present. To do that I think it is necessary to go back to square one and remind ourselves of what the caretaker Prime Minister said in his policy speech on 27 November 1975. Among other things he said:

We will work positively in co-operation with trade unionists.

This applies to the subject matter before the Senate today. I would have thought that of critical importance to that proposal would be an understanding of trust between the Government and trade unionists. Referring to his hope of a government, he said:

It will support wage indexation.

He referred to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission being given much greater opportunity to maintain its guidelines for wage indexation and tax indexation. He said:

Our reforms will maintain the purchasing power of wages and ease the pressure for excessive wage demands.

He rounded off by saying, among other things:

An improvement in industrial relations is fundamental to prosperity.

I could not agree more. I am sure that the trade union movement would completely agree with that pronounced policy of the caretaker Prime Minister who was seeking a mandate and endorsement from the Australian people. He received it. Whether we like it or not, he did. Within 2’/4 months- my colleague Senator

Button has already referred to this- the Government briefed counsel to appear before the Commission. The effect of the brief was to deny the unequivocal undertaking given by the Prime Minister on 27 November 1975 of continuing support for wage indexation as it then existed. More importantly are the statements by the Prime Minister on Monday Conference on 24 May 1976.1 think this is the real crux of the issue. Mr Robert Moore, the interviewer, asked many questions of Mr Malcolm Fraser. The title of the program was ‘The First Six Months- With the Prime Minister’. Mr Moore said:

I’d like to take up one small passage from Mr Lynch ‘s statement on Thursday night which hasn’t been commented on as much as I would have thought, and he said this: ‘Sustained recovery can hardly come about so long as real wages are maintained at the inflated level which over the past 3 years they have attained ‘.

This the question to the Prime Minister:

Now, is your strategy to reduce real wages, the standard of living of the workers?

The Right Honourable Malcolm Fraser replied:

It’s a question of rates of growth. Over the past 3 years there’s been a substantial shift in wealth away from profits, away from businesses into wages and real wages have increased. As a result of that, there’s been less profits . . .

So, first of all, we have the unequivocal undertaking in the policy speech of the Prime Minister, Vh months later we have the submission made by the Government in opposition to full wage indexation and 6 months or thereabouts after the policy speech we have the statement by the Prime Minister which I suggest shows the real overt policy of the Government in industrial relations. What has really happened since the first case on wage indexation after this Government came into office? I shall read from a document which is the submission by the Australian Council of Trade Unions to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 19 April 1977, put by R. J. Hawke, the president of the ACTU. These facts cannot be refuted. He said:

The decision of the Commission on the September quarter 1976 CPI was handed down on 22 November 1976, which gave wage increases to compensate for price increases which had already occurred in previous months. The $5. 70 increase did not become operative until the beginning of April 1977. Thus there has been in fact a wage freeze operating in this country for the last 4 months in a period when the very considerable inflation which has been hitting the Australian community has been caused not by wages but by the misguided decisions of the Australian Government.

And let us put that fact of the recent four month wages freeze into the larger perspective of the full period of wage indexation. Since indexation was introduced in April 197S, money wage increases have not kept pace with the increase in consumer prices. From March 1975 to December 1976, average weekly earnings increased by 23. 1 per cent, whereas over the corresponding period the CPI increased by 26 per cent- that is real wages have not simply been frozen but have declined by almost 3 per cent.

It is important, therefore, to put into this context the proposition for a 3 month wages freeze and the Prime Minister’s observations about the $3.70 of March 31. The purchasing power of average weekly earnings was reduced by about 5 per cent in the December quarter 1976. On the basis of conservative estimates there will be a further 2 per cent to 3 per cent reduction in the purchasing power of wages in the March quarter 1977. To impose a wage freeze in these circumstances would be grossly inequitable. In the last 6 months there has been a savage reduction in real wages as the purchasing power of average weekly earnings has fallen by almost 8 per cent in this time.

Admittedly it has been the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which has made that decision but that has been done at the behest of this Government in the strong submissions which have been made by counsel briefed by it to oppose full wage indexation contrary to the clear, unequivocal undertaking given by the Prime Minister. At the same time, what has happened to profits? The Treasurer (Mr Lynch) in an address to the Sydney Chamber of Commerce on Friday 1 1 March 1977 stated:

Because dry statistics do not, perhaps, have sufficient impact, let me give you some specific illustrations of the extent to which pre-tax profits have risen: ICI up 63.3 per cent in the year ending last September - that is 1976-

Hamersley up 80.2 per cent in the year to last December; National Bank up 29.7 per cent in the year ending last September and, BHP, on an after-tax basis, up 41.3 per cent in the half year ending December last.

I am sure honourable senators will agree that those figures speak for themselves. How, under any circumstances, could the trade union movement be expected on this occasion to accept such a proposal when the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) was very swift to indicate that he was sure that there were certain perishable primary products which could not be subject to the price freeze. There are numerous other instances which can be cited but I shall not waste my time now. They are there to be seen by people who take an interest in these things. The trade unions were not able to obtain guarantees that the price freeze would occur for the next 3 months. It has already been shown that wages have already been frozen for at least 4 months and that they have not kept abreast of the consumer price index. In fact, wages are approximately 8 per cent below the present level of the consumer price index. Therefore the trade union movement was entitled to ask for some additional information before it was prepared to be a complete party to any agreement between the heads of government, employers, commercial interests and other interested groups in the community.

Senator Lewis referred to industrial disputes and lost time through strikes. I am not sure about Mr Hamer. I think he is a resonably honest gentleman. A report about him appears in the Melbourne Herald of 25 February 1977 under a Washington dateline. The report, which is attributed to him, states:

Reports of strikes and industrial unrest in Australia were exaggerated, the Victorian Premier, Mr Hamer, said today. I believe we are our own worst enemies’, he told an American news conference.

The vast majority of businesses do not suffer from work stoppages. A clear majority of factories have never known a strike in their history. ‘

Mr Hamer is saying that; not a member of the Australian Labor Party or of the trade union movement. Let us take into account the facts which Senator Lewis produced. They show that there has been a substantial decline in industrial disputation. There has been a substantial decline in excess pressure for increases in what I describe as legitimate wages, having regard to the ever increasing movement of prices. It can be shown that over the last 12 months wages have not kept pace with prices. This brings me to the next point. I ask: What is this latest ploy? I describe it as the overt not the coven action in relation to the industrial policy of the government. What is this last exercise all about? I can find no words better than those attributed to Mr Kenneth Davidson in the Melbourne Age of today. I think most people consider he is a respected commentator on economic matters. The article is found on page 4 of today’s Melbourne Age. It is entitled:

Freeze ‘ was a political ploy.

Among other things he stated:

The basic reason Mr Fraser and some of his Public Service advisors were attracted to Mr Hamer’s vague idea in the first place was that they saw the possibility of creating an emotional climate where the unions would be forced to accept even bigger cuts in real wages or at the least the blame for the avalanche of prices increases which are already in the pipeline as a result of devaluation.

Finally, he stated:

Basically, the freeze has never been seen as an economic exercise but as an exercise in transferring the blame for the inevitable deterioration in the economy from the Government to the trade unions.

In my view that in a nutshell is precisely what the Fraser Government’s industrial policy has been designed to bring about- a confrontation in the hope that it will enable the Government to shift attention from its own mismanagement and to blame it on the unions and so bemuse the people into believing that if it had not been for the unions taking what is the proper stand and the stand they are entitled to take on behalf of their members, this so-called wages-prices freeze or this myth- it cannot be described as anything else- may otherwise have succeeded. It just does not seem physically or financially possible. It is a contradiction in itself.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– It would appear that the Opposition’s major criticism of the Government’s industrial relations policy concerns this proposal for a national prices and wages freeze. This was a proposition which was put to both employers and unions by not only the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) but also every State Premier, both Labor and Liberal, and it would appear that the honourable senators on the Opposition benches just do not agree with it. They are not willing to give it a go and so are being critical of the actions of every parliamentary leader in this country. As this debate comes such a short time after the laying on the table of the amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Street, and as this is the culmination of our Government’s industrial relations policy, the matters involved already have been debated in some depth. Perhaps the most important aspect to remember when debating this matter is that the Minister when tabling the proposed legislation stressed that it would lay on the table for some time giving full opportunity for public debate by and consultation with all interested parties. He did this despite the fact that the Industrial Relations Bureau was part of our election platform; in fact, it was quite an important plank in our policy. So it has not been sprung on the community or on the unions. In fact, the principle of the Industrial Relations Bureau already has had quite wide public debate.

The Minister has been at pains to stress the willingness of the Government to discuss and debate all aspects of the Bill with both the trade union movement and employer organisations and I feel, therefore, that it is a pity that this debate on the Bill should take place today. I feel that it should more properly have taken place after finalisation of the provisions of the Bill following consultations and after amendments that had been agreed to had been made to the Bill. However, the principle behind the legislation already had received wide public debate at the time of the election campaign. It was debated all over the country and as a result received overwhelming support from every Australian. We have the mandate to bring in this just legislation and I am sure that most honourable senators opposite would agree that we have general support for it from the Australian community. I am sure also that the Medibank strike which occurred after the election underlined the fact that the ordinary rank and file member wanted some form of redress and some way to say to his union executive if he felt as many of them did at that time that there was not enough consultation and, in a majority of instances, there was absolutely no consultation between the union bosses and the members of the union. The members wanted some say in whether they went on strike. We all remember the victimisation of members who wanted to go back to work that took place at that time. We remember the attempted fines and the threat of these fines. This Bill seeks to overcome just this sort of thing.

The Bureau is to be an industrial ombudsman. Senator James McClelland said today in an intimidatory way that unionists who went to the Bureau would be telling on their fellow unionists and he talked about scabs in the unions. We on this side of the chamber believe that individual freedom is more important than that and that an employee should not be made to join a union and to abide by that union’s decisions whether good or bad, right or wrong. We believe in individual freedom and that this Bureau will be an industrial ombudsman. It is to be a place where any man or woman can go.

Senator Mcintosh:

– Do you also vote for your Cabinet?

Senator WALTERS:

-I cannot see what that has to do with the legislation, Senator. It is a place where any man or woman can go to express opposition to any organisation rule or to any industrial action being taken by the union. The Bureau is obliged, firstly, to investigate the legitimacy of the union membership of the person objecting and, secondly, to keep the name of the person going to it confidential.

Senator Georges:

– Why?

Senator WALTERS:

-I shall explain it to you, Senator, if you do not realise.

Senator Georges:

– Why?

Senator WALTERS:

– It is obliged to keep the name confidential because of the intimidation that has taken place when any single member has attempted to do anything about it. The Bureau also is obliged to investigate the complaint and, if it finds on investigation that the complaint is legitimate, to go to the union concerned and tell it of the complaint. If there is enough opposition amongst the rank and file membership to any industrial action that the union might be contemplating the union is informed of it, and if it does not take that opposition into account the

Industrial Relations Bureau then takes the matter to the Federal Court of Australia.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Does this apply to the Australian Medical Association?

Senator WALTERS:

-Membership of the Australian Medical Association is not compulsory. A doctor does not have to be a member of the AMA, as the honourable senator possibly realises. This process avoids the very difficult position faced by a unionist who is attempting to lodge such an objection on his own and I think we would find very few members who would be prepared individually to approach the court in defiance of a union executive direction. We have in this legislation for the first time been realistic and have faced up to the fact that while previously a single member of a union could complain or could try to take action against oppressive rules or an executive decision, realistically speaking this never happened. No single member would attempt to do this, and very few have done so, for fear of victimisation.

Senator Georges:

– What will happen now?

Senator WALTERS:

-In Australia, because the Bureau will keep the name confidential the union will have no idea who has indicated opposition to its rules or actions, and this is the crux of the legislation. We believe in the complete freedom of the individual, that the individual’s right must be protected and that each and every member of the community is entitled to the same protection under the law. It has not been the case in the past but we consider that this legislation can bring it about. A large part of those freedoms which I have just mentioned is the right of the individual to choose his own employment and to choose to join or not to join any organisation.

Senator Melzer:

– You do not believe that they can choose their own employment?

Senator WALTERS:

-There is no enforcement whatsoever in this country to join any political or social organisation and there should be no enforcement for anyone to join any industrial organisation either.

Senator Keeffe:

– Or the Australian Medical Association.

Senator WALTERS:

– I agree, or the AMA. There is a clause in the Bill which specificially allows a person who has a conscientious belief that prohibits him from joining any union or organisation, to approach the Registrar and to obtain a certificate of exemption. Armed with that certificate, that person cannot be forced either by intimidation or by any other penalty to join any union or any employer organisation. His conscientious objection does not have to be on religious grounds but can be for any reason.

Senator Georges:

– But he pays his fees.

Senator WALTERS:

-He is exempt under this legislation. As I have said, this legislation is to lie on the table in order that there can be open public debate. Amendments will be brought down. The Minister has made it very clear that he is willing to have full consultation and public debate on this legislation. We have found in the past that all self employed people have been forced to join unions.

Senator Georges:

– When? Which unions?

Senator WALTERS:

-They have been forced to join unions by discriminatory action being taken against them, by threat. This has happened just recently when the supply of goods has been cut off and they have not been supplied with goods until they have joined the appropriate union. This will no longer be able to happen because if that sort of action takes place the courts can deal with it. There has been much talk about the policing of this legislation and the penalties for breaches of the Act. At the moment the only penalties provided for are monetary penalties on the individuals and the organisations, and the deregistration of organisations. In the past these penalties have proved to be most inadequate, as Senator James McClelland said today. I am sure that the whole community realises that they are most inadequate. Because the penalties have been inadequate the previous Conciliation and Arbitration Act has not functioned as it should have.

Because this Government believes that the Australian people must be protected from the harsh effects of industrial disruption, that the rights of the individual are terribly important but that individuals have responsibilities to carry out, the penalties have been made more realistic. The additional powers given to the court are to suspend all or any of the capacities, rights and privileges of an organisation or its members, and to restrict the use of the funds or property of the organisation and to make provision for their control. The grounds for deregistration of organisations have been extended to include interference with overseas or interstate trade and commerce or government service, or engaging in conduct or activities not authorised under the organisation’s rules. I believe that the rank and file unionists realise that in the past the unions have escaped from much responsibility for their actions, that they have held the Australian people to ransom, that they have tried to take over the job of the properly elected government of this country. They believe that is not the rightful role of the union. People want the government that they have elected to do this job, and they want that government to be able to do the job unhindered by any union action. For that reason I believe that the rank and file unionists will support this legislation. I move:

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I raise a matter of procedure. The honourable senator has spoken for the full 1 5 minutes allocated to her, and for a considerable part of that period she read from copious notes. At the end of the period she moved the gag.

The PRESIDENT:

– She is quite in order in doing so at this stage.

Senator Georges:

– I make the point that it is quite unethical.

Question put.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 22

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the negative.

page 887

REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALTERATION) MODIFICATION BILL 1977

Assent reported.

page 887

CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

References to Standing Committee

Motion (by Senator Missen) agreed to:

That-

1 ) The following four matters be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report:

Processing Law Reform Proposals:

Methods of ensuring that proposals for law reform by the Law Reform Commission are implemented or are otherwise processed;

The adequacy of existing machinery for the collection and assessment of proposals for law reform put forward by judges, commissions, committees and organisations or individuals; and

The effectiveness of existing machinery for coordination of the work of the various law reform agencies in Australia.

Delegation of Parliamentary Authority: The delegation by Acts of Parliament of administrative or discretionary authority whether by regulation, ministerial orders, instruments in writing or otherwise and how to preserve the power of Parliament to protect the rights and determine the obligations and remedies of individuals.

Priority of Crown Debts: The right of priority of the Crown over other debtors in matters of bankruptcy, corporate liquidations or other cases of impecunious persons or corporations.

Parliamentary Scrutiny of Rules of Court: Whether the rules of court of Commonwealth Courts should be made by judges, by regulation, or otherwise; in what manner, and whether such rules should be subjected to Parliamentary scrutiny.

The Committee report to the Senate on each matter as soon as possible but not later than the first sitting day in December 1977.

page 887

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria · NCP/NP

-I move:

  1. 1 ) That consideration of Business of the Senate be postponed till the next day of sitting.
  2. That intervening business be postponed till after the consideration of Government Business, Order of the Day No. 3 (Commonwealth Bureau of Roads (Repeal) Bill 1977).

I do this to enable Senator Carrick to complete his second reading speech on the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wriedt), I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 888

DOCUMENT INCORPORATED BY THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY

The PRESIDENT:

– Yesterday leave was granted to the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle, to have incorporated in Hansard a judgment handed down by Mr Justice Stephen. Through an error, Hansard was supplied by the Senate staff with a document which included 2 paragraphs relating to declarations which were not in the paper tabled and ordered to be incorporated.

I have given directions that the 2 paragraphs which appear in Hansard at the end of the judgment be excluded from the weekly and final Hansard. The error is regretted.

page 888

COMMONWEALTH BUREAU OF ROADS (REPEAL) BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 April, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– In considering the question of an appropriate title for the new research body it was decided that in view of the nature of the work to be undertaken the title Bureau of Transport Economics’ should be adopted. I make it quite clear, however, that such a naming does not imply that the amalgamation consists of absorption of one bureau by the other, or that the functions of the Bureau of Roads will cease to exist. The reverse is the case. The new body will continue the present functions of both the present bureaus. Its primary function will be to assist and advise the Government. Its duties in part will be to:

Undertake evaluations of the Australian road situation as presently done by the Bureau of Roads. These will continue to be done, as in the past, by consultation in the broadest sense with State and local government authorities. It includes conducting investigations and reporting to the Minister on the matter of the need for financial assistance to the States for roads and road transport;

Advise and assist the Government in its consideration of financial assistance to the States for roads and road transport;

Advise and assist in the formulation of policies aimed at the reduction of transport costs;

Undertake research and advise on the improvement of transport efficiency;

Advise and assist on the rationalised planning of transport facilities;

Advise on the optimal allocation of resources in the transport field;

Assess and advise on transport planning and administration procedures.

A secondary function of the new Bureau of Transport Economics will be to assist State and local governments, Commonwealth and State instrumentalities and the private sector to identify and solve transport problems and to plan developments with regard to transport. To achieve these functions, it is clear that the new Bureau of Transport Economics will need to engage in a wide range of activities. These activities will include:

The assessment of the performance of transport systems and equipment;

Carrying out feasibility studies;

Carrying out studies of resource use and availability;

Carrying out studies of pricing and finance;

The evaluation of proposed investments.

Such a work program will, of necessity, involve considerable research activity. It will also involve a heavy task of data collection, collation and dissemination and close liaison with other related organisations.

In addition to these activities, the new Bureau of Transport Economics will further develop the educational role of the old BTE by publishing papers and reports and conducting conferences and seminar courses. Such activities will ensure that the transport industry and persons working in associated fields are kept advised of all available information, that the greatest overall benefit will be obtained from the work of the new Bureau. As I have already said, the new BTE will act independently of the Department of Transport in research activities and in giving advice to the Government. I repeat that its Director will continue to have free access to the Minister for Transport. That is the Government’s clear policy and direction on this matter. In addition, the reports of the Bureau will continue to be made public to the same extent and in the same way as they are now.

There will be no restriction by the Department of Transport or any other Commonwealth Department on the work or advices of the Bureau. Its offices will be as freely available to State and local government, private enterprise and individuals as at present. There has been a degree of concern expressed at the Government’s action in amalgamating the 2 bureaus. This is quite understandable given the success the bureaus have both enjoyed in undertaking their respective duties. I repeat, however, those same duties will continue to be undertaken, but we believe to an even greater degree of success. The Government is confident that practice will show the new Bureau providing an even better service to governments at all levels and industry than the separate bureaus have in the past.

The purpose of this Bill is to repeal the 1964 legislation which created the Bureau of Roads and I would particularly draw honourable senators ‘ attention to the fact that in conformity with the Government’s policies the rights of officers and employees of the Bureau will be safeguarded. I am sure that members of the Bureau of Roads who transfer to the new Bureau of Transport Economics will quickly appreciate the greater career opportunities available to them. There have been suggestions that the new BTE should be established by an Act of Parliament, that its powers, duties and procedures should be set out in legislation. The Government has given careful consideration to this question and has reached the firm conclusion that legislation is not required. The present BTE is not established by legislation but is attached to the Department of Transport. As I have already said no one has ever questioned the integrity or the independence of the BTE. It has always operated with the same degree of autonomy that the Bureau of Roads has enjoyed. The new BTE will be able to react to changing circumstances. It will be able to move with the times rather than be rigidly controlled through legislation.

I want to pay a tribute to the staff and members of the Bureau of Roads for the invaluable contribution they have tendered to this and previous Governments. In particular, I wish to express our appreciation of the services tendered by Mr Harold Loxton, who has been Chairman of the Bureau since its inception and who continued past his date of retirement in order to assist with the amalgamation of the two Bureaus. Mr Loxton guided the Bureau to its present position of high regard by the transport sector and the community in general and the Government commends him for his dedication and successes as Chairman. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 889

PARTICULARS OF PROPOSED ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending 30 June 1 977 and the particulars of certain proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending 30 June 1977.I seek leave to move a motion to refer the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the year 1976-77 to Estimates Committees.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator CARRICK:

-I move:

  1. That the Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1977 and the Particulars of Certain Proposed Additional Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1977 be referred herewith to Estimates Committees for examination and report.
  2. That the Committees deal with departmental estimates as follows:

Estimates Committee A:

Department of Administrative Services

Parliament

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Department of National Resources

Department of Foreign Affairs

Department of Defence

Estimates Committee B:

Department of Industry and Commerce

Department of Overseas Trade

Department of the Treasury

Department of Finance

Department of Primary Industry

Estimates Committee C:

Department of Education

Department of Transport

Postal and Telecommunications Department

Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development

Estimates Committee D:

Department of Social Security

Department of Health

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Estimates Committee E:

Department of Science

Department of Northern Territory

Department of Construction

Department of the Capital Territory

Estimates Committee F:

Department of Veterans’ Affairs

Department of Employment and Industrial Relations

Attorney-General’s Department

Department of Business and Consumer Affairs

Department of Productivity

  1. That the Committees report to the Senate on or before Tuesday, 24 May 1977.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Opposition does not oppose this motion but it wishes to point out that the sittings of Senate Estimate Committees A, B and C are scheduled to take place next Tuesday. So far, a number of departmental documents have not been provided by the departments. Members of the Opposition, particularly members of those Committees, would like to ensure that the documents coming from those departments are available to them before the Senate adjourns this evening so that the documents can be studied at least over the weekend.

Senator Carrick:

– My understanding is that we will be able to provide the documents before the Senate adjourns tonight.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 890

TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSION BILL 1977

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 20 April, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator Wriedt had moved by way of an amendment:

At end of morion add ‘, but the Senate is of the opinion that in respect of the Tertiary Education Commission Bill 1977-

1 ) the Senate recognises the disadvantaged position of technical education in Australia and that adequate financial resources will be made available to the technical sector to raise its standards to levels envisaged in the Kangan Report;

further measures be taken to ensure that technical education in Australia is not further isolated from secondary education; and

every effort be made to ensure full provision for the development of further education ‘.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– I rise to support the amendment moved by my Leader, Senator Wriedt, and in so doing support the principle of the Bill. I will confine my remarks to the Tertiary Education Commission Bill 1977.I feel that the justification in speaking to the Bill at this stage, towards the end of the debate when so much has been said, can only be that perhaps one can draw attention to the inadequacies of the Bill and suggest some remedies. The inadequacies have been noted and amendments will be introduced to deal with some of the inadequacies. We can perhaps comment on the philosophy underlying the Bill and either commend it or criticise it. We can make suggestions which might assist in implementing the legislation. We can provide material to assist future planning because surely this Bill, like any other, is seen as a step towards a later goal. We can draw attention to needs- needs in certain areas and needs in certain geographical regions. I intend to do a little of that in the time which has been allocated to me. I should like to speak firstly about the concept of the Commission itself. Honourable senators may recall that Mr Whitlam, in his policy speech in 1 972, said:

A key channel of communication between Parliament and the people will be a number of expert commissions making regular reports and recommendations on new spending . . . These bodies will not merely be exercises in more efficient, more expert administration of public affairs, they will be an expression of our determination to keep the public informed and to keep the public involved in the public debate on the great national affairs and the great national decisions . . .

So the concept behind this is that the Government will keep the people informed and the people, for their part, will advise the Government. By ‘people’ here we mean not only the people in the street, the clients- if one likes- of most of the departments, but also the experts who can be called in to assist them. In his paper Labor’s Achievements in Australian Education 1972-75, Dr Anderson made this comment:

Labor, Mr Whitlam indicated, rejects ‘the demeaning idea that the Government always knows best’ and brings grassroots participation into decision-making.

He went on to say:

This notion of community involvement in policy formation was to become important to an extent that no political party could have foreseen in 1972, in areas such as Aboriginal affairs and urban and regional development as well as education.

Certainly the commissions have many advantages. They can make increased information available to the public and this will have the effect that informed debate will be possible. I stress the word ‘informed’ in this sense. Debate will be possible within the community on matters of national interest but it will be informed. The commissions will involve the general public in educational planning and it is fairly obvious that the public is keen to be involved in this sort of debate. I refer again to Dr Anderson’s paper in which it is stated:

The Committee on Open University, for example, received a large number of submissions, ranging from single-page letters to substantial theses’, from individuals, groups and organisations, and held discussions with many others.

He commented also on the Kangan report and states: the Kangan Committee on Technical and Further Education reports that ‘ACOTAFE-received more than two hundred written submissions ranging from organisations actively and currently involved in technical and further education to individuals with a concern for but not necessarily any involvement with the field. They were of high quality and strongly influenced the Committee’s conclusions and, subsequently, its recommendations’.

It will be appreciated, of course, that commissions were not an innovation of the Whitlam Government. Perhaps one can say that the significant contribution that the Whitlam Government made in this area was the number and range of commissions that were set up. The only commission I can think of previously of the level of those set up by the Whitlam Government was the Tertiary Education in Australia Commission in 1964 which produced the Martin report. This was perhaps isolated in this area. I think that the other significant contribution of the Whitlam Government was that the process of consultation and advice of experts became a central and integral part of government procedure. It is a fact, of course, that government by commissions -as one might call it- poses a number of problems. Dr Anderson had this to say:

Government by commission’ raises a number of problems, not the least of which is the danger that in framing its recommendations each commission or committee will consider only the limited field of its interest or responsibility and fail to give adequate consideration to the Government’s total responsibilities.

Governments are always faced with the problem of distributing limited resources among different areas of social need in accordance with a scale of priorities and the constraints of the general economic situation. To what extent, therefore, should the education commissions take the general economic climate and the total responsibilities of the government into consideration when making their recommendations? This is not an academic question, but one of great practical importance. Mr Beazley has stated that ‘the magnitude of triennial recommendations’ of the education commissions ‘shocked’ the Government and were a major factor in its decision to delay the next triennium. The lack of co-ordination of recommendations and financial demands, the apparent ‘massive competition between universities and colleges of advanced education for resources’ and the failure of the commissions to give adequate consideration to the rapidly changing national economic climate when making their recommendations suggest that the usefulness of advisory bodies may be limited unless the commissions are able to adopt a wider perspective.

Those comments, as I suggested earlier in my address, were made by Dr Anderson to the Australian College of Education Conference in May 1976.

In his second reading speech the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) said:

The new Commission will play a significant role in shaping and influencing the future character of post-school education in Australia.

The Minister is speaking here of the Tertiary Education Commission. One might pose the question: What son of future? Let us look, before we pose that question, at the present situation within Australia. Education certainly in its institutionalised forms as we know it in the schools, universities and so on, has developed a sort of longitudinal time mode. Each step is based on the past and each step is a preparation for the future. This will be at all levels whether primary, secondary or tertiary. Each step builds on the past. Each step is a preparation for the next grade. So each of those grades or stages have developed their curricula, and these have become highly sophisticated.

Honourable senators will know that there is a special discipline of curriculum development, or whatever it happens to be called in the various universities. They have produced curricula to meet a particular stage but the curricula have very little relationship to other stages. They bear very little relationship to other contemporary social fields. There is no one educational planning authority. I quote here from an article by Allan Skertchly in the Australian Educational Futures. He says:

No one educational or planning group has sought to plan education on a continuing basis through primary, secondary and tertiary years, let alone to continuously support the educational needs of diverse individuals in the life-long learning society. These deficiencies need to be rectified . . Education should provide appropriate life-long learning experiences for all.

We see then a need for an integrated approach right throughout our education system. National planning is something that has been spoken of before. Our present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) mentioned this some years ago, I support the proposition of nationally integrated planning. The Tertiary Education Commission, which is a combination of 3 bodies, should surely look at this matter and investigate the longitudinal and latitudinal approach. It might perhaps come back with the suggestion that we release our secondary schools from the bondage of preparation for universities.

Senator Baume:

– Hear, hear!

Senator ROBERTSON:

-Other sorts of preparation are vitally important. From the comments I hear from the other side I think it is recognised that some secondary schools do little more than this and as such are very ineffective. We must have alternative opportunities within the secondary schools. The secondary schools should not just prepare students for colleges of advanced education and universities. Perhaps the Commission will look at the secondary and primary schools and suggest that we might broaden the work which they are doing. I suggest that we might look for new goals and new approaches. I think we might suggest that the Commission sets up an organisational research team to identify community needs and individual needs. The team could then plan on a very broad base.

Without pre-empting an inquiry of this sort or boring the Senate with my own personal views, perhaps we might look at what all students, not just those in primary or secondary schools, are looking for from the educative process, The first thing I suggest is that students need to learn to learn. They are acquiring the skills and techniques of the learning process. In addition to that they are needing to acquire the skills to support that learning. The second thing they must get from the process is preparation for change. We live in an age of change and will do so in the future. They will have to change perhaps in the jobs they have. A comment made years ago on the scene in the United States of America was that a person will change his occupation 6 times during his lifetime. We are developing that situation in Australia. There must be preparation for a change in the community itself. There must be a change in social relationships or a preparation for a change in social relationships.

The third thing which I think students can look to in the educative process is the old adage from Chiron: ‘Know thyself. The student needs to find himself at whatever level he is. He needs to establish his own identity. It is often spoken of within the Aboriginal context. We say how important it is for the Aboriginal to establish his identity. We forget that in our own European society each one of us must also learn to establish his identity. We need to understand our strengths and weaknesses. We need to learn, I suggest, not only to adapt but also to develop. This is something again which is a personal process which we must acquire. The last one which does not sound an academic sort of comment is that I think we need to gain the tools of satisfaction. By that I mean we will look throughout our social, professional and community life for some satisfaction for the time we spend in the world. We need tools to be able to do this. Obviously we will not acquire satisfaction or reward in our life unless we have certain abilities, skills and attitudes.

Perhaps Clark Kerr has summed this up pretty well in his comment. He was talking about recommendations which his committee had made. He said: . . But our main recommendation is that, in dynamic, open societies such as ours a more effective adjustment process should be sought by promoting more flexible opportunities for individuals to develop, adapt and change their skills, careers and social activities as changes on the economic and social scene take place. With new types of support by public and private institutions, and backed by a more dynamic and flexible educational system.

Clark Kerr has summarised that area. It leads to a few comments, the first of which is that money is not necessarily the major factor. It certainly is a factor but not the only factor. I think we have to accept that a new approach is required. Research is needed to investigate this approach. We must have a recognition by our commissions and authorities that planning is needed and that perhaps a new sort of planning is needed. We must strive not to do better what is being done but to do something better. There is always the danger of accepting a narrow version of what we understand and developing highly sophisticated skills in that area, but we must look beyond this. There is a danger in accepting ‘what is’ at the present time.

I think it would be appropriate to make one or two comments on technical and further education in the Northern Territory. The comment has been made in this place before that this area is the responsibility of our Federal Minister for Education. I have canvassed the problems of technical and further education in the Northern Territory. I have referred to the shortage of staff, the shortage of resources, the problems of the Aboriginal people and so on. I will not go over that ground again. I do not see that as the purpose of this debate. I would like to speak very briefly on 2 aspects in the Northern Territory, the Darwin Community College and the problems of providing educational services to outlying areas, looking only here at the technical and further education field. I remind the Senate that the Northern Territory has an additional problem of cultural differences in some of the people who will be serviced by that education system.

I will say a few words on the Darwin Community College. The concept of the College originally was unique and thrilling. I think those 2 words apply to the situation in the Territory. I am talking here of the concept of the original planners. Certain problems do exist at the moment. I remind honourable senators that it was suggested that the College would meet the needs of university and college of advanced education students in the Territory by giving some assistance with tutorials and lectures and working towards the possibility of providing full courses later on. The College was to provide professional development for those people who were working in the Northern Territory particularly related to the problems of the Northern Territory; in other words, an extension of their professional life. It was to provide training for people to work in the Northern Territory with the peculiar problems that faced the teachers, health workers, social workers, those working in agricultural areas and others. It was to look at the apprenticeship and trade needs of the young people of the Northern Territory. It was to provide courses for Aboriginal people, a variety of courses, short and long, to meet their needs as a developing group. It was to provide further education or adult education as we called it in those days, what we perhaps think of as cultural education, social education, recreational education and all those types of education we used to loosely think of as adult education. In addition, it was to provide enrichment courses for children- perhaps ballet, art, craft, music and so on. One can see why this was called an exciting concept.

I suggest to the Minister for transfer to the Commission that we might see the concept, if not the present situation, as the model for what might be developed in other areas. I look to the future to see the Darwin Community College extending the service it offers to the people of the north. I see no reason why we cannot have the old Colombo Plan idea with students coming from our northern neighbours down to study in Darwin to look at tropical medicine, tropical agriculture and so on. I must mention, of course, the annexe which is operating at present in Alice Springs. One can see that as a development. Annexes could be established in other major centres. The Minister will know that Professor Anderson and his team have looked at the needs of post-secondary education in the Northern Territory at the request of the College. Although that report is not yet available for us to discuss, I am sure that it will be a most valuable document, knowing the calibre of the people who worked on it and the careful scrutiny they gave to the needs in the Northern Territory. I commend the report when it is available, not only to public debate but also to the consideration of the Commission.

The other broad area to which I wish to refer is that of providing educational services to outlying regions. Again, I am speaking of post-school educational services. It is fair to say that there is a need for a novel or innovative approach. I mentioned earlier that there are cultural differences in the people who live out in the outlying areas. I have mentioned before in this place that Aboriginals have a need, as others have, to see what the object of education is at the end of it. We must relate any work that is done to the area which is being served. The people need to see that education will promote employment. Therefore, we must see that there is employment there for them to work towards. Aboriginals do not like to leave home so we must take education to them. We must plan courses in consultation with the people living and working on the settlements to meet the needs of the Aboriginal people. I have suggested before in this place that we might send the lecturers, teachers and instructors around to the settlements to do the work there, rather than ask the Aboriginal people to come into town. With the community involvement concept with which I know the Government agrees we would involve the local people, not only in the planning of courses initially but also in supervising those courses, providing support education and, through the schools, providing preparation for those courses which might be run.

I shall briefly sum up my remarks. I commend the Commission approach. It was something which was developed by the Labor Government. It has a significant contribution to make to the Australian educational scene. It will involve the public not only in the discussion of what the Government puts forward but also in putting forward its own recommendations. We should certainly make use of the contributions of experts and advisers. I trust that the Government will use the material which comes from these expertsnot simply put it away in a quiet corner but consider it as it comes forward. I suggest that the Minister should look forward to the future to see the need for national planning and for a new role for the primary and secondary schools and, repeating the phrase I used earlier, to release secondary schools from the bondage of preparing students only for colleges of advanced education and universities. He should have a close look at what our educative process should be trying to do. In this context I trust that the Minister and his Department will look at the ARNOLD system which is no doubt known to the Secretary of the Department and the other advisers who are present.

I suggest that we do something better and not just do better some of the things we are doing at present. We might take the Darwin Community College, because it is new, improve it and make sure that it will become a model for one area. We might adopt a novel approach to providing educational services to outlying areas and not the perhaps stero-type approach we use at present. I support the amendment and commend the concept of the Bill.

Senator CARRICK (New South Wales)Minister for Education (4.20)-in reply- Yesterday and today the Senate has been debating cognately 2 Bills. The first is a minor but important Bill, the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill 1977. The second, a Bill of very considerable significance for the future, is the Tertiary Education Commission Bill 1977. I thank all honourable senators who participated in the debate. I think it is very heartening to see the extent of participation in debates on education and the growing bipartisanship in this field. This I think is of great importance. The Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill is largely a machinery Bill. As was stated in the second reading speech its object is to make special long service leave provisions for New South Wales technical teachers who became members of the Commonwealth Teaching Service between 31 December 1976 and 1 April 1977. It follows similar lines to former legislation and it has the support of the whole Senate.

The Tertiary Education Commission Bill is, as I have said, a measure which will provide machinery which will have a significant impact on shaping education in Australia, specifically in the post-school area in the decades ahead. It is important to understand the significant points of the Bill. The Opposition has dwelt largely upon one difference, that is the inclusion of technical and further education. That is a significant difference in the Bill from the Bill introduced by the Whitlam Government in 1975 which, of course, was not passed through the Parliament. That Bill in itself dealt with 2 commissions, the Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education. It ignored technical and further education. It sought to establish one integrated commission, a tertiary education commission, amalgamating the 2 commissions and leaving no second tier of councils under the commission. This Bill is distinctively different. It does a number of important things which should be grasped. As the Senate has recognised it brings into the field of co-ordination and rationalisation a third sector of education, technical and further education, and gives to it equality of opportunity and equality of status along with universities and colleges.

I repeat that enshrined in this Bill is a highly significant development, a promotion of technical and further education into the tertiary education field and its promotion as an equal partner. Secondly, the Bill itself does not provide an amalgamation. It recognises the fundamental point that it is desirable to promote and encourage the discrete and distinctive qualities of individual types of institutions. Universities should be nurtured and encouraged to become better and better, consistent with the quality that one has in mind for universities, specifically the pursuit of pure learning in itself, the pursuit of research, both pure and applied and, of course, some training in professionalism. But in themselves they should enshrine the pursuit of knowledge of the highest possible quality. It is important that there should be an institution- in this case the Universities Council- the role of which specifically is to look towards universities, to look towards their qualities, to look towards the individual institutions, and to gather a stream of knowledge and information, a stream of research, which can be brought together by way of report into a blueprint for universities for the year and years ahead. It is important for the working of this mechanism that there should be a subjectivity of direction towards universities, in this case as I have illustrated.

It is equally important that there should be a body, an instrument to look towards the colleges of advanced education and to have a vested interest in developing those colleges into the best colleges that it can devise; not into colleges that would hope to be universities; not into colleges that would hope to be technical colleges, but colleges which are performing the concept and philosophy of a tertiary college and moving forward into higher and higher quality. That is the role which we envisage for the Advanced Education Council. Equally importantly, there should be a body looking towards the subjective viewpoint of technical and further education, collecting its information and its recommendations and bringing them forward.

This framework, not being an amalgamation, is a two-tired system- in the first place a Tertiary Education Commission co-ordinating, rationalising, a visionary body in itself, a body which will look forward to the future; look forward to the dreams and hopes of men and women; look forward to the things of the heart, the soul and the mind in the quality of education and its fulfilment; look forward to vocational orientation, and in doing so recognise a changing world; recognise the need for changing institutions, recognise that in a world of limited resources there is a need for a balance, a rationalising or a co-ordinating.

We have set up a body of some 9 people- four people full-time with specialist knowledge, the chairmen of the 3 councils and the overall chair.man and offsetting or leavening in this regard some 5 people from the community at large to bring the community viewpoint to the specialist viewpoint. This will be a great adventure in education. It represents a recognition that the clients ought to be there, that education is not the captive of institutions or academics but that it is an instrument for the people, for the individuals, and as such this advice brings the clients into major association with the specialists.

The Tertiary Education Commission will be looking towards the Williams Committee on education and training which is now in full progress of its research. It will be noting the kind of investigations and researches which the Williams Committee is doing, will be very responsive to studying the report of that Committee in a year or more, and will in itself then pick up the role of the future adventure; pick up the role not of simply entrenching the status quo but of looking towards the changes for the future. Within that Commission and under it will be 3 councils for universities, colleges and technical colleges. This is a fundamental difference from the past. I think and hope and believe it is of fundamental importance. This preserves the distinctive characteristics but will go further. The Bill provides that the councils shall do virtually the same work that the Commissions do today, that is, statutory bodies with freedom to seek and to find, to investigate, to dream, to report beyond the guidelines and the confines of the Government of the day but also equally within those confines.

Most importantly, the Bill provides that the reports of the councils as given to the Commission shall be public knowledge. They shall be made public in this Parliament, to the people and to the government of the day. The reports of the councils and of the Commission will become public and the public will be able to make its judgment, just as the government of the day and the advisers of the government of the day will make their judgment as to where the balance of judgment should lie, and be able to determine whether the councils were right in this or that, to determine on what value judgment the Commission relied and to determine whether the government of the day was right or wrong in making some modifications. So here again we really have an adventure.

Perhaps it is a rather brave government that seeks to advocate by legislation the production of a series of reports which in certain circumstances could be in conflict. It is the very ability to produce the subjective views, on the one hand, and the rationalised views on the other which, if carried by able people to the true extent, will produce the strength or otherwise of this institution. This marks it down in a very special way indeed.

I have dealt with a number of points made. For example, Senator Button asked the relationship of the Williams Committee to the Tertiary Education Commission. I see the Tertiary Education Commission working closely with it but carrying on in future in the wide sense. I have said these things not simply to repeat or to elaborate on my second reading speech but because the debate took largely a specialist line with regard to technical and further education. There is an amendment before the Senate. The Government will not support it. The Government will reject the amendment primarily because the amendment is not necessarily in its general terms. I will make another comment in a moment or two about the Kangan Committee. Senator Wriedt acknowledged in his speech yesterday the basic reason there is no necessity for this amendment. At page 809 of Hansard he is reported as having said:

However, now that we have this Bill before us, I indicate that the Opposition will not oppose the concept of including the technical sector in this new Tertiary Education Commission because we feel that there have been sufficient safeguards written into the legislation to ensure that the technical sector is not disadvantaged.

There, without qualification, the Opposition has recognised the truth of the matter, that is that sufficient safeguards, to use Senator Wriedt ‘s words, have been written into the legislation to ensure that the technical sector is not disadvantaged. So along with the assurances of the Government in my second reading speech, of which I remind the Senate, and Senator Wriedt ‘s acknowledgement, it is unnecessary to write into this legislation any further reassurances about technical and further education, I repeat that it has been made an equal co-partner. I repeat that so much is the Government concerned that technical and further education should be advanced that it has given it a very special place. I remind the Senate of these 4 sentences of my second reading speech.

To exclude technical and further education from the coordinating mechanism would be to fail to appreciate the inevitable working interface between colleges of advanced education and institutions of technical and further education and the continuous need to rationalise functions between the two. It would ignore also the need to upgrade the role of technical and further education in the post-school sector. It is the Government’s firm intention to devote special attention to technical and further education, which has been for too long the area of least consideration to governments in postschool education, particularly in the allocation of resources. The new Commission will have an important role in the development of these resources and of co-operative arrangements with the States for the support of technical and further education.

More important than the actual legislation is the fact that governments of the day and of the future, as the Government of the immediate past did, will be using financial and other guidelines to invite the Commission and the councils to direct their primary inquiries, not to delimit totally their inquiries or reporting. The Commission and the councils will say: ‘Within the financial purse limitations of the Commonwealth, there is an amount of money for the whole of the postschool education. Here, in our view, is the break-up. Here, in our view, are some suggestions of priorities’. Without qualification, the Commonwealth Government indicates that it will provide, in terms of guidelines, a directionalism towards a significant approach to technical and further education.

The basic nature of the amendment is the inherent need to reinforce the specific purpose of technical and further education. The existing safeguards require no further reinforcement. The amendment refers to the Kangan report. It had many interesting and good qualities to it. It would be fundamentally against the procedures of parliaments to seek to enshrine in enduring legislation for the years and even the decades ahead some binding directionalism towards a report of the day, however meritorious. Therefore, the amendment is defective. The resources of the Commonwealth will be directed in the best way to technical and further education. However special and however important one sector is, it would be wrong if, in our desire to recognise the failure we as a people and as parliaments have made to upgrade technical and further education, we allowed the passionate swing of the pendulum to disregard or to give insufficient regard to the other great institutions- universities and colleges. It is fundamentally wrong to seek these passionate swings. These things have bedevilled education in its seeking after fashions and passions. This is a balanced Bill. It balances the 3 kinds of institutions. It seeks to provide a co-ordinated and rationalised approach.

Senator Wriedt felt that there must be insecurities or threats to the situation, particularly to technical and further education, in the Government’s federalist policies. I think I am right in suggesting that he was insinuating that the Commonwealth Government’s aim was to abdicate from paths of education and to pass the buck, as it were, financially or otherwise to the States. I think that is a reasonable paraphrase. Senator Wriedt must have overlooked the letter of the Prime Minister to the Premiers which has been in his possession and is known to him. He must have overlooked the statements at the Premiers Conference. He is very receptive to statements made at the Premiers Conference that appeal to him. May I remind him that the Prime

Minister’s letter, which I shall seek again to have incorporated in Hansard, made some fundamental statements. One statement was that the Commonwealth would discuss with the States on a number of premises. Incidentally it talked about the need to upgrade technical and further education. It stated:

We are interested in exploring jointly with States possible avenues for rationalisation and better co-ordination, in particular in administration and finance, across the whole education function but we fully appreciate the complexities that any such exercise entails. We certainly do not envisage any immediate changes to the present arrangements. Neither is there any attempt by the Commonwealth to retreat from its present position in which education is regarded as an area of substantial commitment, nor to reduce its overall financial contribution.

In other words, the total answer to Senator Wriedt lies in the written commitment contained in a letter to the Premiers in which the Commonwealth said it will not reduce its financial commitment; it wanted to have discussions with the States to rationalise. I seek leave to have the letter incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The letter read as follows-

Prime Minister Canberra

Mr Dear Premier,

You will be aware that, against the background of the Government’s Federalism Policy, Commonwealth /State financial and administrative arrangements in a number of areas have been under examination. In this context my Government has given preliminary consideration to possible ways of improving the existing arrangements for support for schools technical and further education, colleges of advanced education and universities. You will no doubt agree that high priority must continue to be given to governmental support for education, and that we should jointly be doing what we can to improve the efficiency and co-ordination of our efforts to get the best value possible from our outlays.

From our own preliminary consideration, we have come to the view that there may well be significant room for improving the existing separate co-operative arrangements applying to the various sectors of education. One step we have taken in this context is the recently announced decision to replace three education Commissions with one Commission to cover the whole post-secondary area, which will enable the Commonwealth Government to receive better coordinated advice on the three separate components in the post-secondary area.

We are interested in exploring jointly with States possible avenues for rationalisation and better co-ordination, in particular in administration and finance, across the whole education function but we fully appreciate the complexities that any such exercise entails. We certainly do not envisage any immediate changes to the present arrangements. Neither is there any attempt by the Commonwealth to retreat from its present position in which education is regarded as an area of substantial commitment, nor to reduce its overall financial contribution.

Commonwealth funding in education ranges at present from full support for universities and colleges of advanced education to varing levels of complementary support for the schools and TAFE sectors. Co-ordinating and advisory machinery for governments also varies from sector to sector. The Commonwealth has been considering the possibility of more even funding arrangements across all sectors whilst recognising the traditional role of the States. We consider it is possible that a new overall system might be devised which would be acceptable to all governments and could significantly improve co-ordination between governments and rationalisation in the provision of education. We see a continuing place for the Education Commissions consistent with both Commonwealth and State responsibilities.

We have now reached the stage where, if you are agreeable, we would wish to explore the matter with the States.

I am writing to you, therefore, to seek your agreement to discussion without commitment at this stage being initiated by my Minister for Education, Senator Carrick, with his State colleagues. I am writing to the other Premiers in similar terms, and would be grateful for your early advice.

Yours sincerely,

MALCOLM FRASER

The Hon. N. Wran, Q.C., M.L.A., Premier of New South Wales, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Senate will also be aware that the Premiers Conference agreed to the discussions, and they will take place shortly. It would be intolerable if those who advocate the enhancement of technical and further education were not to identify the fact that whereas we finance 100 per cent universities and colleges, consistent with the Whitlam Government’s policies which set up the Technical and Further Education Commission, there is still only a topping up by the Commonwealth of technical and further education. It is a topping up to the extent of about 20 per cent. It is important to realise that those who advocate any further advancement must look to some better arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States. This is, I think, important.

Senator Wriedt indicated on behalf of his Party that it seeks regular annual reports. I draw attention to this, ahead of what I understand are some suggested amendments in the Committee stage. If members of the Senate read clause 9 sub-clauses (1), (2), (3) and (4) they will find that it is mandatory for the Government to table those reports which deal with the financial arrangements and those reports which come from the councils to the Commission. Consistent with the Acts which were put on the statute book by the Whitlam Government, this Government is providing for the tabling and publication of reports, not specifically annually. The Whitlam Government did not do that because it recognised, and we recognise, that there may not be a requirement to report annually. There may be triennial funding. Therefore there would be 3- yearly reporting rather than yearly reporting. The provisions of this kind in the Bill are fundamentally the same as other provisions in the past. They compel the revelation and the publication of documents, but compel them as they relate to the one major weapon of Parliament-the financial allocations and commitments of Parliamentand compel them in relation to the councils and the Commission, I think this is adequate. The States Grants Acts demand that there shall be reports on the programs. They are made available to the Parliament. On all those matters there is a total answer in the legislation as it is now.

Senator Knight drew attention to the relationship between the new Commission and Canberra institutions, specifically technical and further education in Canberra. It is true that clause 7 ( 1 ) (a) (ii) provides that the new Commission will advise the Minister on financial assistance to technical and further education in the Australian Capital Territory as well as to the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education. In the past by legislation the Commission had to advise on the Australian National University and on the Canberra College of Advanced Education and so too today the Commission will be asked to advise on technical and further education. But in no way will that alter either the relationship between technical and further education institutions in Canberra, the Department and the Minister or the fundamental importance of the co-ordinating bodies or council which are in Canberra. It is competent upon the Government in TAFEC, as it is in the university or the college, to accept or not to accept the recommendations. In any case, special amounts of money are made available directly. There is no reason to fear this situation in any way but to encourage it.

I commend the comments made by Senator Robertson in drawing attention to the Darwin Community College. I believe that the Darwin Community College deserves encouragement as it is a specific and new type of venture in education. We need to look at its very close adaptation to the Northern Territory because it does not serve only Darwin. In the end there will be other functions for it. I acknowledge that it has a specific role. Of course, the new Tertiary Education Commission will not be bound to existing institutions. The Bill provides for it to be varied and to think up new ones. It was appropriate, as I understood Senator Robertson, that he should make an appeal in which I join for a betterment or for an increasing quality towards education institutions. I think I understood him correctly when he used the word ‘better’. I share his sentiment entirely. I believe that what is emphatically needed is an upgrading and an improvement. I simply mention 2 minor matters by way of correction. Last night Senator Button, misguidedly, in mentioning the birth or creation of the various commissions, as I understood him, indicated that the Commission on Advanced Education was of Labor origin. I make no partisan claims. I simply remind the Senate that the Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education are of Liberal origin. They were followed by TAFEC and the Schools Commission as national developments. I commend the Opposition for the development in that field.

Senator Colston in referring to the debate on the statistics of costs for the various calendar years 1975, 1976 and 1977 said that the figures I was using were in fact a comparison of real costs for 1976 for what were the proposed costs of the commissions for 1975.I say that that is entirely incorrect. What I was actually doing- I think the table which was incorporated by Senator Baume shows this- was giving the amounts of money allocated and spent by the government of the day for the calendar years 1975, 1976 and 1977. But I do not want to be in any way combative because I believe that both the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal and National Country parties over the decades have done much to further the cause of education in Australia. There is an enormous amount still to be done.

Having talked about the fact that we have some 280 000 young people in universities and colleges, which is a high rate per capita when compared with many parts of the world, I point out that we have some 700 000 in technical and further education institutions which are not as well equipped. I conclude by referring to the figures which I think some honourable senators opposite used. It is true to say that some 70 per cent of boys and some 80 per cent of girls having left school in this present day and age will not, in the ordinary process, receive any more formal education. I think this is not good enough. I think we should all be dedicated to improvement. I commend the Bills to the Senate and I wish them speedy progress.

Question put-

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

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 30

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills together read a second time.

In Committee

Tertiary Education Commission Bill 1977

Clauses 1 to 6- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 7 (Functions of Commission).

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I seek from the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) clarification of clause 7, although I do not intend any amendment to this clause. I refer to the drafting of the Bill. As I understand clause 7 (3) (b), it gives the Commission the function of furnishing advice in respect of matters relating to any institution, other than a prescribed Commonwealth institution, established or proposed to be established by the Commonwealth for the provision of tertiary education. The clause seems to imply that it deals with institutions, other than prescribed institutions, established or proposed to be established but the definition of ‘prescribed Commonwealth institution’ in clause 4 states that it is an institution established or proposed to be established by the Commonwealth. The situation may be the same in the previous Bill although I must confess that I did not look for it. The meaning of clause 7 (3) (b) is not clear to me. Can the Minister indicate what type of institution is being referred to and whether the clause is correctly worded? There seems to me to be some ambiguity in the clause as it stands.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I am grateful to Senator Wriedt. My understanding of clause 7 (3) (b) and certainly the intention of it is that it enables the Commission to advise in relation to institutions not defined as tertiary institutions under the Act and thus not subject to recommendation by the Commission under clause 7(1). This provision is intended mainly to make it possible for the Government to seek advice from the Commission in relation to institutions, such as the National Film and Television School, which are not funded under the tertiary education program. I would think that the Defence Services Academy which is foreshadowed would be another such institution. On the other hand, sub-clause (3)(c) provides a link with other Acts, principally States Grants Acts, under which the Commission would have power and delegations to administer the financial programs. So the kind of institutions are the specialist ones.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (Reports by Commission).

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move:

This amendment requires the Commission to present an annual report to the Minister and for that report then to be tabled in the Parliament. I concede, as the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) pointed out during the course of his reply to the second reading debate, that Bills introduced by the previous Government also were worded in this manner. However, in retrospect one does see the possibility of the

Commission, and later we will discuss the councils, being in some way inhibited from giving a complete picture to the Parliament of what it considers to be the operations of the Commission during the year. Sub-clause 9 (2) states:

  1. Without limiting sub-section (1), the Commission shall, at such times and in respect of such periods as the Minister directs, furnish to the Minister reports containing recommendations with respect to the matters referred to in sub-paragraphs 7 ( 1 ) (a) (l) and (ii).

If my reading of sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of clause 7 ( 1 ) (a) is correct, they refer to the functions of the Commission. In addition, subparagraph (iii) is relevant, and states in part: any other matter relating to tertiary institutions that may be referred to the Commission by the Minister . . .

The point I wish to make is that the other matter referred to in that sub-paragraph presumably would not be included, if I have read the Bill correctly. It is for that reason that the Opposition feels there may be and almost certainly would be other matters that the Commission would wish to have tabled in Parliament for public scrutiny. I accept in good faith the Minister’s desire, as he indicated yesterday, to see the maximum disclosure of the work of both the Commission and the councils but there seems to be an opening in that clause whereby certain matters which are referred to the Minister by the Commission may not be tabled in the Parliament.

In his reply a few moments ago the Minister for Education, referring to the 3 councils, said that the 3 councils will do virtually the same work as the commissions. Their reports will be public and the public will be able to make their own judgments. He said that the 3 councils will do virtually the same work as the 3 current commissionsthe Universities Commission, the Commission on Advanced Education and the Technical and Further Education Commission. Currently all those commissions provide annual reports or reports to the Parliament which fully document their views on their respective areas of responsibility. Assuming that to be the case, one would also assume that not only the Tertiary Education Commission but also the 3 councils would follow the same practice.

I am not aware, under the present legislation concerning the 3 commissions, of any inhibiting factor on any of the commissions as to the reports they place before the Parliament. They are at complete liberty to indicate to the Parliament every aspect of the areas for which they are responsible. The Opposition is seeking no more than the same rights for the new Tertiary Education Commission and also for the 3 councils. For those reasons I put to the Committee that the amendment moved by the Opposition be accepted.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

-In reply to the Opposition’s statement that it is seeking no more than that which is contained in the present legislation for the 3 commissions, I say on behalf of the Government that those provisions now exist in this legislation. In order to help in understanding this matter, let me say that 2 kinds of reports can be made either by the councils or by the commissions: The day to day reports, which Senator Wriedt will fully understand, having been a Minister, are basically confidential reports or ordinary documents of departments or authorities, and the periodic financial reports by the councils or the commissions. As to the day to day reports, as in the present circumstances of the commissions, it is not intended that they should be public. I fully understand that the Opposition is not suggesting that they should be public.

Today the commissions publish periodic reports arising out of the Commonwealth’s inviting them to do so, either by way of triennial reports, rolling triennial reports or annual reports with, to use the modern term, financial guidelines. I make it perfectly clear to the Parliament that, just as at present a commission may do 2 things in that report- firstly, it may report within the limitations of the guidelines and, secondly, it may report wider than the guidelines and without limitation as to comment- the councils and the commission will be so responsible, so disposed and so equipped for the future. The councils and the commission will be able to present the same kinds of periodic reports as are published today by the commissions. There will be no limitations on them. As Senator Wriedt says, I believe that it is fundamental to the working of this mechanism that they should be given that kind of freedom- the freedom in the first place to report on priorities within financial and other guidelines, and the freedom to dream further or to comment further than that.

The only question is whether there should be insistence on annual reports or periodic reports. The Government sees no reason to use the term annual reports’ because the reports may be needed on these matters in a frequency which may not be adapted to the word ‘annual’. Conceivably they may be required more than once a year. If my memory serves me correctly, that happened in 1975 when the Commission was given 2 jobs to do. Of course, the reports may be triennial. Under the present circumstances, in a rolling triennium they would be inevitably at least annual. On that basis- I give the assurance that the councils and the Commission are entitled to report in general terms- the Government sees no need for the amendment and, except for the meaning of the word ‘annual’ believes that the intention of the Opposition is embodied in the present legislation.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 36-by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 37 (Advice by Councils)

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move:

After sub-clause 5, add the following sub-clause:

Each Council shall furnish an annual report to the Minister who shall, as soon as practicable, cause such report to be laid before each House of the Parliament.’

The same basic arguments as I indicated in my comments in relation to clause 9 apply to this clause. I did not respond to the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in relation to clause 9 but let me say now that I accept the fact that he would wish to see full reporting and I also accept the fact that there is certain information or advice that he is entitled to seek on a day to day basis from a statutory body which, in some cases, can legitimately be confidential to the Minister. In these amendments the Opposition is not suggesting that every possible piece of advice and so on should be tabled in the Parliament.

While I acknowledge the assurance that has just been given by the Minister in respect of the Tertiary Education Commission and the councils, I do not feel that the Opposition should withdraw this amendment. I will proceed with it and I trust that, as time goes by, it will be demonstrated that in no way will either the councils or the Commission be inhibited in placing before this Parliament a full account of the activities of the various areas of education under their responsibility. We know that, despite the differences of opinion that may exist about financing education in the future- I do not wish to go into that subject again now- very large sums of Commonwealth money will be committed in the education area irrespective of the emphasis of this Government or of any future government. Therefore, full and total accountability for what is happening in those areas is essential. I respect the assurances that the Minister has given us but nevertheless I will persist with the amendment.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I will be very brief. The Government will oppose the amendment. Let me say that it has been valuable that Senator Wriedt has drawn the attention of the Committee to certain features of the legislation. It is my firm and explicit belief that what I have said is accurate. Only history can prove how these courses shall develop and only history can prove how governments in the future will react to the use of these mechanisms. Suffice it to say, as I said before, that it is pan of the contrived inbuilt mechanism of the two-tier system that there should be the full and frank reporting of the periodic reports. History will show how this works out. We can, of course, as governments adapt or otherwise as necessary.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of the Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill 1977

The Bill.

Bill agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Readings

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

page 901

AUSTRALIAN DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AGENCY (REPEAL) BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 1 March, on motion by Senator Withers:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Bill before the Senate is the Australian Development Assistance Agency (Repeal) Bill 1977. As was pointed out in the second reading speech by the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers), in effect the Bill seeks to repeal the legislation that was brought in by the previous Government for the establishment of this particular Agency. We oppose this Bill on more than one ground. We believe, firstly, that it is an excuse to reduce our foreign aid commitments in real terms. It also represents a dismantling of an important agency that was capable of making independent allocations of Australia’s overseas aid funds. The legislation also will create the impression that

Australian aid will be handed out only to countries which could be said to fit in with Australia’s foreign policy. It also would strengthen the impression that Australia has an attitude towards foreign aid which could fairly be described, from the second reading speech, as predominantly materialistic.

The Agency was established by the Labor Government. I might point out that at the time of its establishment it was supported by the then Opposition. In fact, the person who is now Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) said on 2 April 1974:

The Opposition supports the Australian Development Assistance Agency Bill.

The Deputy Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Sinclair) supported the establishment of the Agency but expressed some reservations about its character. It could well be that as Deputy Leader of the Country Party he would naturally support commodity agreements and foreign aid payments which would provide a direct outlet for Australia’s agricultural products but perhaps he could not see the same benefits in the long term for rural exporters. Of course, the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party has not shown a great deal of enthusiasm in this area in the past, but at least he has not yet reached the stage of complete opposition to all forms of overseas aid, such as we see on the part of his colleague, the Queensland Premier.

The Opposition prefers to take what we would call a wider view of our international obligations and our relationships with other countries. When in government we did agree to put into operation the United Nations decision whereby the developed countries of the world, which of course included Australia, would raise their overseas aid programs to represent 0.7 per cent of their gross domestic product. I am not entirely critical of the efforts in this area of the previous Liberal-Country Party governments. I have said many times in this place that because of the unpopularity of the overseas aid issue in the electorate the previous governments had undertaken a program of assistance to the developing countries which was at least up to average standards. I think it is fair to say that the program of assistance was even better than average standards bearing in mind that the great bulk of the aid that was given was in untied grants to the developing countries.

Nevertheless, in 1971 that level was only 0.53 per cent of our gross domestic product. By 1 975 the Labor Government had increased it to 0.6 1 per cent of our gross domestic product. Now we find that this year it has fallen again to something below 0.5 per cent of our gross domestic product. So it is quite evident that this Government is not prepared to maintain the commitment that the Labor Government entered into. In fact, it is fair to say that the disbanding of the Agency and its being passed over to the Department of Foreign Affairs is a part of the move by this Government to submerge the activities of foreign aid.

Of course, the Minister for Administrative Services has claimed that certain staff reductions will be made. He said the move will be undertaken . . with the objective of achieving maximum economies consistent with the effective administration of the aid programs’. However, the Minister has not indicated what proportion of our aid funds were taken up in administrative costs and what proportion of administrative expenses is estimated to be attributable to net aid funds when the Agency is taken over by the Department. The Minister has not provided any qualitative assessment of the foreign aid programs which have been proposed by this Government. There is no information to substantiate this claim of his: . . reintegration of the Agency into the Department has had a beneficial effect on the administration of our overseas aid program . . .

Where are the benefits? We find that the tactic of showing expenditure in calendar year figures is being used, whereas traditionally figures for aid in the Budget Papers have been shown on a financial year basis. The Minister indicated that over 3 financial years Australia will provide $60m in aid to the South Pacific countries and a special grant of $500,000 to voluntary agencies. Yet it appears that the sums in the calendar years will be substantially cut throughout the second half of 1978. This suggests that, again in real terms, recipients of Australian aid will be worse off under these arrangements than they were under the previous Government.

There was some importance in having a separate aid agency which was able to develop its own experts in what is a very important but contentious area. It was important also that a special agency should be able to draw upon expert staff or consultants from any area of the public or private sector without having to be submerged, one might term it, in traditional departmental views. It is important that the people who advise the Government in this area of overseas aid are people who have a commitment to ensure that the aid projects are used as effectively as they possibly can be. There seems to be a tendency in this legislation-in fact I think it is the intention of the Government- to lose not only that expertise; perhaps not all the expertise because the Minister for Administrative Services himself said that much of it will be retained- but also the commitment to this area of overseas aid which we endeavoured to build up, and in fact did build up, during the time when the Agency was in operation. Another couple of important questions should be asked. The first is the way in which Australian aid is given and the second is the development of Australia’s attitude to policies towards proposals by underdeveloped countries for the establishment of a new economic order and, in particular, the Common Fund concept to finance the holding of important commodity stocks around the world.

Substantial amounts of Australian foreign aid- although they are destined for underdeveloped countries- are spent on a tied basis within Australia and only the goods and the personnel arrive in the overseas countries. In many cases either the goods or the personnel have proven to be unsatisfactory and the net benefit of the aid is reduced. These are factors which ought to be considered. The Common Fund is a concept which was, of course, initially put to the United Nations, and indeed carried by the United Nations Assembly in 1974, with a view to stabilising the world trade in certain products. The intention of that decision was that all the nations would combine in order to give a greater degree of stability, particularly to the single items of export which may make up so much of the earnings of many of the developing countries.

At this stage I think it is fair to say that the Australian Government has taken what could be described as a negative attitude on this matter. It has not been slow in pointing out all the difficulties associated with the establishment of an international fund supporting a series of commodity buffer stocks. No one would deny that these difficulties exist but the long term objective of stabilising primary producers’ returns in developing countries- for that matter in Australiaand the prices in the producing countries has a great deal of merit to it. I would hope that the Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Anthony) especially, and of course the Minister for Foreign Affairs, will recognise the efforts which are being made in the United Nations among such a large group of countries in order to bring about these matters. I do not think it is necessary to go to any greater depth insofar as the Government’s policy on overseas aid is concerned. Suffice its to say- I reiterate- that when the agency was set up by the previous Government the then Opposition- now the Government- did not oppose that legislation because it recognised that an agency could work more effectively as an independent body providing advice to the Government.

The repeal Bill before us seeks to ensure that the agency will go out of existence. The real reason for this, of course, is that it is consistent with the whole of the Federal Government’s approach to its financial commitments. It is an example of where there will be a diminishing Commonwealth responsibility. It is a great tragedy that we should see this taking place in this particular area which is so vitally important to us as a trading nation, as part of the world scene when as a wealthy nation- as the Minister has already pointed out in his second reading speech- we can afford to meet that commitment. Yet, this is the first move in a deliberate effort to reduce that commitment even further. I regret very much that we have to debate this Bill. As I have mentioned many times in this place, if there is one area in which there ought to be a common outlook, it is this area where the major political parties of this country could think collectively and make a unified commitment to our assistance to the developing world. That appears not to be possible, at least in the near future. This step is a retrograde step which the Opposition regrets and most certainly opposes.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I rise to support the Australian Development Assistance Agency (Repeal) Bill 1977 which replaces the Agency with the Australian Development Assistance Bureau within the Department of Foreign Affairs. I should like to make a few points in relation to what the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) said. He pointed out that the present Government, when in Opposition, supported the legislation establishing the Australian Development Assistance Agency. That is quite right. It was in fact a valid experiment and a significant innovation which was certainly worth trying. But as I should like to discuss a little later, I think it was an innovation which now, on examination, can be seen to be not necessary. Senator Wriedt also suggested that the thrust of the second reading speech of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) on this Bill in the other place suggested that the aim of the legislation and, indeed, the aim of the Government’s international assistance policies was to ensure that these fit in with the Government’s ‘foreign policy notions’. I only point out to Senator Wriedt that the present Government has provided assistance to the Government of Vietnam for its reconstruction program and it has provided assistance, through the Commonwealth, to Mozambique. I am sure that Senator Wriedt would have to agree that that would not necessarily fit in with our general foreign policy notions’ but it does fit in with our approach to aid and the fact that aid ought to be directed to people in need, rather than to governments. Senator Wriedt claimed also that the Government is attempting to reduce its commitment to aid but 1 think it only needs to be pointed out that in the 1975 Budget, for example, bilateral aid was increased by $20.7m. In the 1976 Budget of the present Government it was increased by $31.9m. In the 1975 Budget of the Labor Government, multilateral aid decreased by $1.4m. Last year, in the first Budget of the present Government, multilateral aid was increased by $ 18.7m. The result was that in the 1975 Budget the total increase in development assistance was $ 19.3m compared with $50.6m in the first Budget of the present Government. I do not think anyone can suggest that those figures indicate that we as a Government are attempting to opt out of our obligations with respect to development assistance to those in need around the world. I think it is also worth commenting that in this debate and in consideration of our development assistance- and anyone else’s for that matter- it is a mistake to approach the question of development assistance simply by looking at the statistics. The simplistic obsession with statistics and figures with respect to aid and percentages of gross national product does not provide a valid picture of the relevance, significance and value to the recipients of aid programs. There are certainly many more substantial issues which have to be considered when assessing the value of development assistance but, again, I should like to refer to that later.

I said in my opening remarks that I think the Development Assistance Agency during its period of operation, did not demonstrate clearly that such a statutory body was a more effective means of handling our development assistance program or of developing policies with respect to development assistance. That agency was under the authority of the Foreign Minister and was certainly very closely related to the Department of Foreign Affairs, if only for the first reason. The Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) in his second reading speech, pointed out:

The Bureau is performing all the functions formerly carried out by the Agency.

The point is that the Bureau will be strengthened by its integration with the Department of Foreign Affairs. Again I would like to say a little more about that and quote in full one part of the second reading speech of the Minister which was quoted by Senator Wriedt. It is a fact that the Bureau was established earlier on in the period of this Government. The Minister said:

Experience over the last 12 months has already shown that the reintegration of the Agency into the Department has had a beneficial effect on the administration of our overseas aid program; a closer relationship between the Bureau and other areas of the Department has developed. Furthermore there is a deeper overall appreciation of the importance of development assistance in Australia’s foreign policy. Effective administration of our foreign policy, and indeed the development of the best possible policies, requires that officers concerned with aid should be given opportunities to make an appropriate input into thinking about our foreign relations as well as being fully conscious of the mannerin which those relations bear upon their responsibilities. In other words, there must be close working relations between aid officers and their colleagues of the Department. The new arrangements will facilitate the development of such relationships.

In establishing a Bureau the Government is concerned to maintain the professional approach to aid administration and the opportunity for career specialisation which was being developed in the Agency. The Bureau will have a very substantial degree of autonomy in relation to financial management of the development assistance program.

It is clear enough from the Minister’s statement but I think it is worth reiterating that development assistance must not be seen as part of our foreign policy, particularly in that policy’s political aspects. I think we have to be sure that in formulating our development assistance programs we do not develop them so as to serve our foreign policy objectives. Development assistance is and will remain inextricably linked, and I believe it should be closely co-ordinated with our international relationships. The Government’s action in establishing the Bureau and in reintegrating aid administration into the Department of Foreign Affairs will contribute to that. It is significant, as the Minister has pointed out, that the Bureau is not substantially different from the Australian Development Assistance Agency and is carrying out the same functions. I believe this provides an improved arrangement with respect to the administration of development assistance.

I take the opportunity in this debate to express what I believe ought to be some fundamental principles governing our approach to development assistance. I believe that the first of those is- as it ought to be- that humanitarian considerations are the basic determinant of our decisions with respect to development assistance. I believe that this should be the case despite ideological or political views, though obviously of course one would have to take a different view if there were conflict. I think all governments should recognise that development assistance is for people and not for governments. It may be at times difficult to draw the line in these matters, but that ought to be the principle on which we operate. While we may not like particular governments, if people are suffering or are in need our obligation ought to be clear enough. Secondly, I believe that development assistance must not be to serve our own interests first. It should be to serve the needs of others. Our own interests ought to be a secondary consideration. That of course applies to what I have already said about development assistance not serving the ends of our foreign policy though being for practical reasons closely coordinated with it.

As far as is possible aid ought always be provided in the form of untied grants. Considerable emphasis should be placed on bilateral aid as has been traditional in Australia’s overseas aid programs. In the current year, for example, total bilateral aid is estimated at $339.4m and multilateral aid at $60m. I believe that that sort of emphasis is proper and sensible though we could perhaps consider giving more aid to a number of multilateral organisations. One of the criteria on which that increased assistance ought to be provided, I believe, is that multilateral institutions contain their administrative expenses. Many such international organisations are notorious for the high percentage of funds made available to them which is absorbed in administrative costs.

The next principle which I believe is important is that aid be relevant to the recipient rather than to the interests of the donor. I will expand on this topic a little later. We ought to re-examine our development assistance programs to assess the extent to which they are relevant to recipients. In this area new concepts such as the use and development of intermediate technology, as Professor Schumacher has called it, and the involvement in small projects particularly at the village or local level in developing countries are of particular significance. There is, of course, a place in development assistance projects for arge scale programs- the building of major roads, dams and important infrastructural projects. I was recently in Thailand and saw some of the work being done by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation in building roads in northern Thailand. That project is being undertaken by a very dedicated and able group of Australians with their families.

Senator Young:

– Over many years too, senator.

Senator KNIGHT:

– Over many years indeed, and Australia’s contribution has been substantial. The Thai authorities indicate quite clearly that this has been of great importance to them and will continue to be so. Those sons of projects obviously have their place in our overall development assistance program. I want to say one thing about both large and small projects to which I nave already referred. They should be closely integrated with existing development programs in the countries concerned so that their value is enhanced and their relevance increased. We should also give particular emphasis to the closely related international problems of food production and population control. I think too much emphasis has been placed on providing emergency food aid to many countries and too little emphasis on providing facilities for such countries to produce food for themselves. The problem of population control is now recognised. The dimensions of the problem in many countries, such as India and Indonesia, are immense. They are areas in which we could perhaps assist further and which ought to be given priority. I think we should also as a matter of principle attempt to ensure that our programs are directed to alleviating the mass unemployment and particularly under-employment in many developing countries in Asia, the Pacific and Africa. I will say something more on that later. These sorts of problems give rise to difficulties arising out of the urban drift, the conditions in which urban fringe dwellers live in many such developing countries and the related problems of urban poverty and degradation. It is these sorts of problems to which our development assistance ought to be particularly directed as a matter of principle. Again, I believe that a fundamental principle of our approach to development assistance ought to be to aim our programs at allowing the recipient countries to achieve self-reliance and selfsustaining growth. Development assistance ought only to be a temporary phenomenon in any particular case. Its aim ought to be to provide for self-reliance and self-sustaining growth. Those 2 criteria ought to be fundamental to all aspects of our development assistance program.

There are other areas in which we have responsibilities and obligations with respect to providing assistance to countries less well off than ourselves. We have domestic obligations within our own country which are relevant to developing countries. For example, we are under an obligation to conserve energy in our own country, not just to meet our own interests, but also because it is of great importance to hundreds of millions of people in developing countries. I believe that we also have to examine trade policies with respect to developing countries. I shall deal with this aspect in a little more detail later. But this sort of approach has been recognised in

Australia for many years. In 1966 we introduced preferences for lesser developed countries. In December 1976 we made concessions under the Multilateral Trade Negotiations. Those sons of actions make it clear that we recognise this need and are prepared to do something about it. Another principle I regard as fundamental- I have already referred to it- is that our development assistance program is not part of our international policies although it ought to be integrated effectively with them in administrative and practical terms.

Senator Georges:

– How can they be separated?

Senator KNIGHT:

– I have also said-this relates to Senator Georges’ comment- that development assistance is an inextricable part of our total international relationships and cannot be entirely separated. I agree with Senator Georges there. But I have made the fundamental point that it ought not to serve the political ends of our diplomacy. We must also recognise that new factors exist and are emerging and that they are relevant to our approach to development assistance programs. Senator Wriedt referred to proposals for a new international economic order. The United Nations has adopted a number of resolutions relevant to those proposals. A number of international conferences are being conducted and negotiations are continuing in pursuit of those proposals. Other issues such as the refugee situation, are relevant to our development assistance programs. I think that this is an area which the Australian Development Assistance Bureau ought to be examining as one of priority to assess where, in terms of development assistance and aid programs, Australia might have a role.

In nations and societies such as our own in the 19th and 20th centuries there has been a progressive development of understanding that the more affluent have an obligation to assist and contribute to the betterment of those less well off. That process is still occurring but, at the same time, it is now beginning to occur in the international sphere. More affluent nations are now beginning to recognise that they have an obligation and a responsibility for the less affluent nations and the less fortunate people of the world. It may be that that is one of the most significant developments that will occur during our lifetimes. I refer to a recent expression of an eminent Pakistani economist, Mahbub Ul Haq. He said:

If history is to be our guide, the world may well be on the threshold of a historical turning point … At the international level, we still have not arrived at that philosophic breakthrough when the development of the poor nations is considered an essential element in the sustained development of the rich nations and when the interests of both rich and poor nations are regarded as complementary and compatible rather than conflicting irreconcilable. And yet we may be nearing that philosophic bridge.

I agree with him. I hope we are both right.

I now refer to the relevance of aid in a little more detail. One of the first jobs of the Bureau ought to be to undertake a total reassessment of our aid program. It is something to which the Agency might have given priority. I have already suggested that we ought not to be obsessed with targets. Certainly the provision of 0.7 per cent of gross national product as aid is a reasonable target. But to simply use that target, or to take as the criterion of our aid performance our position on some international aid ‘league table’, to me is somewhat irrelevant and certainly far too simplistic. It does not take into account the impact, the significance, the role, the relevance and the value of our aid to the recipients. Surely these are the meaningful questions we should be asking, not what percentage of our gross national product we are spending. We should be asking not what is our position on the international league table’ but what our aid means to the people who are receiving it. Some of these matters have been examined by Professor Schumacher in a book entitled Small is Beautiful. I shall refer to some of the points he makes in that book. He sees the pattern of development based heavily on the use of largescale and increasingly complex technology as a primary cause of continuing world mass poverty in many parts of the world. He considers that the present pattern of industrial development is based on a wasteful use of the world’s scarce resources- I agree with him- particularly its rapidly diminishing sources of cheap energy. He suggests that we ought to be developing smaller scale decentralised intermediate technology. He calls for the replacement of the traditional approach to unlimited growth by what he calls the economics of permanence ‘. He says:

The economics of permanence implies a profound reorientation of science and technology, which have to open their doors to wisdom and, in fact, have to incorporate wisdom into their very structure. Scientific and technological ‘solutions’ which poison the environment or degrade the social structure or man himself are of no benefit, no matter how brilliantly conceived or how great their superficial attraction. Ever bigger machines, entailing ever bigger concentrations of economic power and exerting ever greater violence against the environment, do not represent progress: they are a denial of wisdom.

Arising from that statement Professor Schumacher assesses what he considers to be the inadequacy of the developed nations’ aid programs. He believes that the central problems confronting the poor nations are mass unemployment in the rural areas and the resultant tendency of the rural poor to migrate to urban areas and to live in fringe areas in slums and degrading conditions in what is almost universally an unsuccessful search for some form of security and, of course, employment. He then argues that the application of the technologies of developed countries to these situations usually results in what is referred to as a dual economy in which only a small elite benefit and the masses do not. It is that problem that we ought to be examining, with the governments concerned, to see how our aid programs can be made more relevant to solving those problems. There is no point in our suggesting that our aid programs are solving those problems because they are not. Demonstrably they are not solving those problems in Asian countries, for example, and we ought to be reexaming our aid programs to see how they might become more relevant. Obviously it is a matter for the governments concerned but in our approach to those governments we ought to indicate to them that we want to play a part if we can in solving those problems.

Schumacher suggests that it is essential that these people, particularly in rural areas, achieve some form of employment. He believes that the solution lies in the creation of simple inexpensive industries through the use of intermediate technology, more relevant technology, which ought to be the basis of more relevant aid from countries such as ours. As he puts it:

The idea of intermediate technology does not imply simply a ‘going back’ in history to methods now outdated … it means a genuine forward movement into new territory, where the enormous costs and complications of production methods for the sake of labour saving and job elimination is avoided and technology is made appropriate for labour surplus societies.

Schumacher is not specific in many cases and often his theories raise as many questions as they answer but I believe that the principles he raises are valid and the means of putting those principles into practice ought to be a first priority for any governments aid program, and I believe they ought to be given priority by the Aid Bureau. I just make the point out of all this that the target in aid really is not what is most important; the relevance of that aid is.

Senator Young:

– Would you agree that too much aid had been misplaced in the past?

Senator KNIGHT:

– I have no doubt that some has been misplaced, and I have no doubt that if we assessed our aid we probably could reduce some aid programs and still make them more effective, not that I am suggesting that we should reduce them. I do not think we should.

Senator Keeffe:

– You cannot take it any lower.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I certainly do not believe we should take them any lower. The question is: How relevant is it? We may find that our aid could be 3 times as effective without being increased if we really examined where it is going and what purpose it is serving. That is my point. Surely the ultimate aim is to best assist those in need. I do not believe we ought to be carried away by the magnitude of our aid because that is not necessarily the most relevant measurement. I certainly do not think we should indulge in selfcongratulation; I do not think any government should do that, nor should any Australian for that matter, about our overseas aid. It ought to be under constant re-examination and I think that sort of self-congratulation simply reflects a narrow-minded, selfish and rather self-interested approach to the whole question.

Our aid programs are already very substantial. The Budget papers, particularly Budget Paper No. 2 relating to the budgets of various Commonwealth departments, indicate that the allocation put aside for the aid agency, or the Bureau as it will be, when included with that of the Department of Foreign Affairs, is the third largest single item when compared with various departments of the Commonwealth Government. Even when it is not included with the budget of the Department of Foreign Affairs, our aid budget is greater than the budget of 22 Commonwealth departments. I believe that indicates the scale and significance of the program, and perhaps also the potential significance of the amount of money we are putting into aid programs if we could better assess them and make them more relevant to those who receive the aid. I want to refer briefly to some of the main programs. Over the next 5 years Australia has guaranteed to provide $930m in untied grants to Papua New Guinea, $60m over 3 years to countries of the South Pacific and $86m over 3 years to Indonesia. Clearly the Bureau must have the staff to administer what are very large programs and what is a very substantial budget in terms of other Commonwealth departments. Its staff at the moment is 550.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

General Business taking precedence of Government Business after 8 p.m.

page 907

QUESTION

SELECT COMMITTEE ON EAST TIMOR

Debate resumed from 3 1 March, on motion by Senator Gietzelt:

That-

1 ) A Select Committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report upon the following matters:

the form of Australian aid to the residents of East Timor;

b ) the plight of refugees from East Timor;

the fate of six (6) Australian journalists in East Timor;

d ) communications between Australia and East Timor;

the position in Timor, including the conflict between Timorese forces and Indonesian forces and the position of the Timorese civilian population, the origins of the conflict and its impact on the Timorese people; and ( 0 other matters related to the foregoing.

The Committee consist of seven Senators, four to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and three to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

The Committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

The quorum of the Committee be three.

The Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.

The Committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a sub-committee be two.

The Committee or any sub-committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

Members of the public and representatives of the news media may attend and report any public session of the Committee unless the Committee otherwise orders.

The Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it. A daily Hansard shall be published of such proceedings of the Committee as take place in public.

The Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the Committee, with the approval of the President.

The foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

Upon which Senator Missen had moved by way of amendment:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert ‘there be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence the following matter.

The situation in the former Portuguese colony of East Timor, as it relates directly to Australia’s interests and responsibilities, and in particular-

a ) Australian assistance to the East Timorese people;

Australian policy concerning refugees and the reuniting of families from East Timor; and

the disappearance of Australian journalists in East Timor’.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– On Thursday, 24 March, and on Thursday, 31 March, the Senate during the course of General Business was discussing a motion moved by Senator Gietzelt that a committee of inquiry be formed to consider the question of East Timor. During the course of the debate there were, I think, some quite excellent contributions from both sides of the chamber. I am sure that all of us realise the significance of this issue. It is a matter of conscience to Australians and is certainly a matter of conscience to this Parliament. It has become what may be termed a central issue in Australian political life and has been since early 1975. Tonight we are being asked to decide whether we proceed to hold an inquiry into the tragic circumstances in East Timor. I do not believe that we can any longer afford to ignore the necessity to hold an inquiry. I am speaking as an individual. I hope that I can claim to be speaking as a humanitarian. I do not believe that we ought to be speaking primarily as members of an individual Party or that we should be seeking to apportion blame on any individual, any Party or any government for the events in East Timor. I speak in the belief that, through investigation, we can unravel the truth.

The East Timor problem simply will not go away. Unfortunately, it will continue to fester in Australia. It will continue to create immense doubts in the minds of Australians. It will remain a factor in our foreign policy considerations, not only in the context of our relationship with Indonesia but also in the context of our standing throughout the whole of the region. It will have a major impact upon our many small neighbours and how they view our collective security, our integrity, our conscience and our will. It will also continue as a major issue in the United Nations. It will continue , in the eyes of many countries, to reflect very deeply upon how they assess our own country. East Timor will not fade into the history of Australia’s foreign policy. Despite efforts to place it in the background, 2 key factors will prevent it from becoming history. One is the blood spilled by human beings, both East Timorese and Indonesian. That will stamp an indelible mark on history. Further, there is increasing opposition to the military intervention in East Timor throughout the world- in the United States of America, the Netherlands, Sweden and

Britain. That alone will ensure continuing repercussions for a long time. We have a duty and a responsibility to the Australian people, the East Timorese and the refugees to seek the truth in these matters.

It has been said by some members of the Senate that an inquiry would harm our relations with Indonesia. This must naturally be a matter of concern to us. We must weigh several factors. It is unfortunate that in recent weeks some remarks have been made by spokesmen for the Indonesian Government which must cause great concern. It is unfortunate that the remarks have been made. The Opposition does not wish, and I believe the Government does not wish, to see any deterioration in our relationships with Indonesia. However, we must weigh the pros and cons of this dispute. One can conclude only that an inquiry must proceed with. Several major points led me to this conclusion. Firstly, if the relationship between Australia and Indonesia is mature an inquiry should be no hindrance. Certainly the relationship between the United States and Indonesia does not appear to have been harmed by the recent United States Congressional International Relations Committee holding an inquiry into the allegations of atrocities in East Timor. It was a searching inquiry. There appeared to be no punches pulled. The congressmen who were responsible for the inquiry acted openly, forthrightly, and yet we see no evidence that this has damaged the relationship between the United States and Indonesia. Those congressmen have shown the way that we should follow.

Obviously it is important that we have good relations with Indonesia. But at what price? Surely a Senate inquiry would improve our standing in the whole of this region and, I believe improve the respect which the Indonesian Government would have for us. It would demonstrate clearly to them that we were a people concerned with the humanitarian aspects of what had happened in East Timor and that we were concerned to seek the truth. An inquiry is a means by which the Indonesian Government could present evidence that contradicts the growing weight of information alleging atrocities, destruction and supression in East Timor. Surely a Senate inquiry is a viable forum in which charges and counter charges can be assessed.

It was suggested in this debate some weeks ago, when Senator Withers led for the Government, that such an inquiry would serve only to exacerbate the distress suffered by individuals who have, or may have, lost relatives in the continuing war. I believe the real test of this point is to look at what the relatives themselves are saying. Certainly in Lisbon the East Timorese refugees have answered this suggestion most clearly. After all, they are the ones who have to suffer most of all in these tragic circumstances. What have they to say about an inquiry? I refer to what John Penlington said on the Australian Broadcasting Commission national news on 24 March. He made the following comments, and I quote from a transcript:

These people were prepared to give me their names, but not for publication. Nor were they prepared to be filmed making their statements for fear, they said, of reprisals against some of their relatives still living in Timor. However, and I cannot stress this enough, all of them say they are prepared to testify at any properly conducted judicial inquiry into the behaviour of Indonesian soldiers in Timor.

It is interesting to note that in that transcript Mr Penlington is reported to have said that all of them were prepared to appear before an inquiry. Surely it is those people who would have the most at risk. Furthermore, the relatives of the 6 Australian journalists want to know what happened. We recall the allegations made by Mario Carascallo who appeared before the United States Congressional Committee. He revealed that pro-Indonesian forces did kill the journalists on that fateful day in Balibo. He also claimed that firing came from the house in which the journalists were staying. We are in a clear position to assemble evidence that could unravel this situation.

One thing is certain: We have the responsibility to clear the journalists of any imputations that they may have been engaged in actual combat. There is a great deal of evidence which could dispute the claims of that witness. We should all be worried that he could further state that one of the journalists was in fact executed some distance from Balibo, If we have any doubts that an inquiry would cause further distress, we have the evidence of the letter which has been published by the sister of Roger East, the journalist, and which I have read. It is a most distressing letter and it shows the mental agony through which that young woman is apparently going. We must ask ourselves: Have we the moral right to continue to ignore the search for truth in this matter? Honourable senators who have opposed the motion which was moved by Senator Gietzelt and the amendment moved by Senator Missen have described, in some cases, an inquiry as being a witch hunt. I believe that that is not sustainable. Neither the motion, nor the amendment, in any way seeks to judge anyone. Nor do they make any assumptions. Both the motion and the amendment set out to establish the machinery whereby we could seek out the truth.

We must seek out the truth and reach an understanding about events which have happened so close to our shores. Perhaps this search for the facts will have a positive effect in limiting the chances of similar events occurring in future. I believe that such an inquiry would be of assistance in making this objective a reality. In the past we have agreed to Senate inquiries into overseas issues which have had some influence upon our lives. These inquiries include an analysis of refugee problems in Indonesia and the Middle East. We inquired into the position of political forces in the Indian Ocean and currently we are inquiring into aid considerations in the South Pacific. Also on the notice paper is a motion which, if passed, will mean an inquiry into the new international economic order. I am sure that all of us will give our support to these inquiries. I certainly do. They are designed to provide a factual, objective basis for an understanding of these problems. I believe that a Senate inquiry into the East Timor position would be a natural step in the progression of steps which have been taken by the Senate in these other areas.

Only some weeks ago we read the distressing statement by the Foreign Minister for Indonesia, Mr Malik, in which, apparently at a news conference, he was reported as saying that perhaps up to 80 000 persons had been killed in this conflict. How can any one of us ignore a statement by the Foreign Minister of that country? He is prepared to state publicly that the number of persons killed was of that order. Is it not apparent that we cannot gloss over or sweep under the carpet an issue which has happened so close to our shores and with the background of involvement which we have had with the East Timorese, especially during the Second World War? Apparently so many of them have died in this tragic conflict. Australians have died in it as well. Surely we have a moral responsibility to support the formation of a Senate committee in order to ascertain the truth?

The Australian Government has allocated $330,000 in aid, destined through the Indonesian Red Cross to go to the people of East Timor. It is a matter of constant concern that the Indonesian Government has refused to allow the International Red Cross to return to East Timor. Surely the International Red Cross has a record of impartiality in the area of international relief. We may ask ourselves why this situation has occurred. I believe we can only have the gravest suspicions. I am further concerned that there is no normal supervision or assessment of our aid to East Timor. Certainly the inquiry could investigate this matter and clarify or perhaps confirm many of the doubts we may have about our assistance in this area.

Tonight we are debating a matter of human concern. So far I have not heard, certainly not in the speech made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers), of a justification for any one of us to oppose this motion. Accusations have been made, and they were made again tonight on the news, about the role of the previous government and about the role of this Government. If we were here trying to apportion blame to either governments or individuals in those governments there might be some merit in the Senate dividing on party lines. But no one is suggesting that the purpose of the inquiry is to do either of those things. There is no intention to say that there was any act of guilt on the part of this Government, the previous Government or any member of those governments. We have a clear responsibility in this matter. East Timor cannot be ignored. If the Indonesian armed forces acted without brutality in East Timor, then let the inquiry determine that; let it be known and demonstrated by evidence that any accusations of brutality by the Indonesian forces are not true. The only way we can find this out is by the formation of a committee. If there are continuing atrocities in East Timor, an inquiry may even reduce further atrocities by highlighting to Australia and to the rest of the world the issues involved. This is a course which we, as human beings and members of Parliament representing the Australian people, must take. We can no longer pretend that East Timor does not exist.

There must be an element and a feeling of more than concern. I do not quite know the word to use. I do not want to use the word ‘guilt’. In the tragic last days of 1975-1 am not speaking of domestic events here but of events which occurred when we seemed to be caught up in our domestic problems- apparently terrible things were taking place or were alleged to be taking place and they went largely unnoticed by Australia as a whole. But so many Australians now realise that there is such a weight of evidence to suggest that terrible things were done and maybe are still being done. The only thing we can do is support the motion. For those honourable senators who cannot see their way clear to support the motion, I suggest they should at least support the amendment so that a committee can be established in order that the truth can be reached.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (8. 1 8)- I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks and observations of the honourable senator who leads the Opposition in this place, Senator Wriedt. I do not think any honourable senator would ever attempt under any circumstances to take away from the Leader of the Opposition his deep sense of humanity which actuates and manifests itself in so many ways in the Senate. I find myself in a difficult position in following the honourable senator because he has with the wealth of his native instinctive feeling for injustice put on an emotive plane the whole subject matter which we are discussing under general business tonight and the amendment which has been moved by Senator Missen. I am not condemning anyone for holding an emotive attitude to the deep tragedy which has occurred in East Timor. No one with any sense of compassion can have any feeling other than that expressed by Senator Wriedt tonight in relation to the matters which have occurred in East Timor. But there was a history of these events going back long before this time.

The object of general business motion No. 9 under the authority of Senator Gietzelt and the amendment moved by Senator Missen is to deal with a situation that apparently exists now but not to deal with the circumstances that existed prior to this tragedy. I am not involving myself in partisan politics on this matter. If any honourable senator cares to look through the observations that I have made in this Senate from the end of 1 974 he will see that I took a deep interest in the events that seemed to me moving remorselessly towards the situation to which Senator Wriedt has just addressed himself. These circumstances existed then. We are now dealing with the result of policies that were followed by not only Australia but also other countries 3 years ago.

Therefore we have a problem because Senator Wriedt believes that at this stage we have to seek to establish the truth of what happened. However, if we are to look at the truth of what exists at present we also will have to look at the truth of the events that have been described by Senator Wriedt and ask: How did these events occur? What caused them? Why did the Indonesians invade Timor? What were the circumstances which caused this international situation in which a neighbour of Australia felt itself compelled for reasons which any honourable senator pausing for a single solitary moment would understand to be those which actuated and manifested the government of the Republic of

Indonesia to take the action that it did. Therefore, I think that I must traverse the original circumstances.

The original circumstances, and I am not apportioning any blame at all, involved the total collapse of the Portuguese empire. Although it was a minor and minuscular empire, still it was the Portuguese empire. There was a collapse in Portugal of a willingness to discharge the responsibilities which Portugal had absorbed historically, for example, in southern Africa. There was the remnant of its ancient empire in Macao in China. Portugal had been turned out of Goa by the Indian Government earlier with no warning. Honourable senators will recollect that one morning the Indian Government just marched into the ancient Portuguese colony of Goa and took it over. There was then no appeal to the General Assembly of the United Nations or to the Security Council about India invading Goa. The highly moralistic government of India, which I have heard praised in this Senate many times over the last 20 years, without any warning marched into Goa and took over this ancient colony with its Christian population of Portuguese descent in terms of its Portuguese morality and forms of government. Oddly enough the world applauded it. A vacuum or lack of will, or whatever term may be used to describe the situation that existed in metropolitan Portugal, was created.

When Portugal vacated what it felt was an insuperable burden which it could no longer sustain and moved out of Angola and Mozambique leaving nothing behind- just suddenly laying down the responsibilities of administration and governorship and leaving behind a vacuum in Angola and Mozambique- massacre and genocide inevitably followed. I never heard a word of complaint in the Senate about the events that took place in Goa in the 1950s. No one took any action or moved any motion to complain about the action of the Government of the Republic of India. I have never heard in this Senate a single solitary word about the events that took place in Angola and Mozambique. I have never heard in this Senate any form of complaint against the powers which moved into the vacuum created by the movement by Portugal out of southern Africa. I have never heard in the Senate one word of complaint about the armed incursion into southern Africa by Cuban troops. I have never heard a single word uttered in this Senate about the movement by aerial lift of highly trained and competent Cuban soldiers into southern Africa, a Cuban legion variously estimated to be in the vicinity of 20 000 men. I have never heard in the Senate from either honourable senators on this side of the chamber or honourable senators opposite any comment about that armed incursion by a foreign power into Angola and Mozambique. Now in these circumstances the question must be asked: Why was no complaint made going back nearly a generation against the Indian Government s incursion into the Portuguese territory of Goa? Why was no complaint made against the armed incursions into the ex-Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique in southern Africa? They are not rhetorical questions because I propose to answer them myself. The reason that no voice was uttered in this place, and I state this categorically, is because there was an emotive alliance between those people who had made the incursions into southern Africa and Goa and a belief that they were liberating the people of southern Africa from the colonial yoke of the decayed and debilitated Portuguese empire.

Senator Georges:

– Did you believe that?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I am not saying whether I believed it or not. Since the honourable senator has directed a question at me, I think it is true that a selective morality exists in this Senate. Apparently it is proper for Russian sustained and logistically supported troops to move into southern Africa but it is a bad thing for Indonesia to walk into Timor and do what other governments and forces have done in the immediate past, particularly in southern Africa.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Rubbish!

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-Senator Gietzelt interjects that it is rubbish. In terms of selective morality it is good for Russian supported armed incursions into southern Africa but it is bad when it is done by the Indonesians who had a very difficult situation on their borders. Half of Timor is an Indonesian possession handed over by the Dutch under pressure from an Australian government. So half of Timor was handed over to the emerging Indonesian Republic by a government in power here in the late 1940s which, incidentally, was supported by the Australian Labor Party. But under the selective morality it is bad for Indonesia to try to prevent what it believes, rightly or wrongly, may be circumstances that would cause a problem in the management of its archipelago nation. But it is good for an armed incursion to come from Cuba supported by the might of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and to move into Angola and Mozambique. That is the background.

Senator Wriedt:

-Who has ever said that in the Opposition ranks?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I did not say what anyone in the Opposition has said. What I said was that there has been a deadly silence in the Opposition ranks, and a deadly silence on this side too, while this has been going on. No one in the Senate has taken any notice in a formal way of the incursions into southern Africa. But there has been in a formal way a condemnation of a previous government and the p resent government because an armed incursion as taken place in our near neighbourhood. We are in another area now, by interjection from Senator Missen, who says that it is significant if it happens just across Torres Strait or the Arafura Sea but it is not significant in terms of humanity if it happens in southern Africa.

Senator Missen:

– I did not say that.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-That is what you are saying by your silence. That is what is being said by the silence on the other side.

Senator Missen:

– Those are not my words.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK-That is what you said, Senator Missen. You are always interjecting off the top of your head, not knowing really and truly what you are talking about. The fact is that there is selective morality on your side, Senator Missen, and there is selective morality in other parts of the Senate.

Senator Missen:

– You put the words into my mouth. I did not say that.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I can look after myself, Mr President, although I am grateful for your intervention on my behalf. We are involved here in a problem of selective morality. This attempt to arm, to warm and to anger the Australian Parliament on the question of Timor took place long before the horrendous events which Senator Wriedt has been describing to the Senate tonight. Three years ago, long before the Australian journalists went into Timor- without permission, I might add- long before the assault on East Timor by the Indonesian Government, there was in this Parliament a strong and direct attempt to force Australian parliamentary opinion into a situation of intervention in East Timor. I am disturbed and distressed when I hear attempts being made inside the Parliament of Australia to warm the Australian electorate to Australian incursions or excursions into the area of a near neighbour. What was to be done to prevent the Indonesian Government invading East Timor? Action was taken by the Australian Government in the United Nations to see whether it was possible to prevent this happening. No one will deny that. The record stands clearly that the Australian Government, from the end of 1975 to the beginning of 1976, tried to alert the General Assembly of the United Nations and the Security Council of the United Nations- this vast body of world opinion as it is alleged to be- to take action to prevent what subsequently transpired. And what happened in the General Assembly of the United Nations and the Security Council? There was a massive silence. In that area, where it seems to me in these days more wars begin than are ever ended, there was a massive silence. Nothing was done in the General Assembly of the United Nations or in the Security Council to bring world moral pressure to bear on Indonesia. The action was treated with contempt.

Therefore it seems to me that there must be a reason for the General Assembly not to take any action. I searched my mind to find out why it is that world opinion should not take any action or manifest itself in reality against the incursions by the Republic of Indonesia into East Timor. The answer comes quite clearly that it is good and it is proper for any other nation that is not a European derived nation to take any action; it is good for any nation that is not a European derived nation to involve itself in armed incursions one way or another into a neighbouring country. It seems to me that Australia had no option except to do what it possibly could to arm and manifest world opinion and alert it to what is alleged to be a wrongful act under what are normally accepted as international conventions. There was nothing more Australia could do except what it did do. It had a responsibility to do what it did. But there is not one single person in Australia today- not even Senator Gietzelt, I imagine, or Senator Missen- who would advocate that Australia should have mounted unilateral armed intervention to prevent the Indonesian Republic going into East Timor. No one in Australia would accept that. I would not accept it. These events may happen in the near future, who knows? It is all very well to be moralistic in terms of international relationships but, if I may use what may be described as a vulgar expression, it is often important in international affairs to put your foot where your mouth is and march through where your mouth is expressing opinions. That is the background to the situation which had to be canvassed here tonight. I had the responsibility in following Senator Wriedt to make these antecedent situations quite clear to honourable senators.

I turn now to the second problem because it involves in a most direct way the responsibilities of Parliament in the context of the conduct of international affairs. Inside our constitutional practice whether it is written or unwritten- in this case in the situation in which we are involved it is unwritten- we have inherited a whole series of expressions of unwritten constitutional practices.

Senator Georges:

– Which we ignore, of course, from time to time.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-It is a function of the Parliament to acknowledge, disregard or overturn constitutional practices whether they are written or unwritten. Although the High Court is there to protect the written Constitution it is doubtful whether the High Court has the power to deal with matters that are the unwritten elements of the Constitution. It would repay honourable senators to study one unwritten element of the Constitution from time to time because in a substantial degree it governs our life. I refer to the existence of what is known as the prerogative. I will not attempt to define the prerogative. In other words, I do not intend to define the indefinable. Nevertheless there exists an element in our constitutional practice which is known as the prerogative. The prerogative relates to that matter which is vested in the office of the Governor-General. If Mr Whitlam ‘s belief be sustained, namely that Australia becomes a republic at a future stage, the elements of the prerogative will have to be vested in a president of the Australian republic just as they are vested at the moment in the prerogative rights expressed in the functions and office of the Governor-General.

There are two elements inside the prerogative which are quite clear and distinct. They are that the prerogative power extends to the use of the armed forces in war, and in the circumstances of non-war the prerogative exists in the control of foreign affairs. It is based on a fundamental constitutional theorem which exists in the English speaking world, whether it be in the United States of America or in Australia in 1977, and that is that in circumstances of peace the conduct of foreign affairs lies in the area of the prerogative power; it does not lie in the area of the parliamentary power. The parliamentary power in the prerogative sense relates to the fact that if a government conducts foreign policy in a way which is not acceptable to the Parliament of the day then the Parliament of the day has the power to dismiss the government that is carrying out a foreign policy which is contrary to the policy, the will and the wish of the Parliament. To that extent and to that extent only has the Parliament the right to attempt to conduct the foreign policy of this country. I say this with some reluctance; or perhaps it is not with reluctance because what I am saying I have expressed from time to time over the whole of my parliamentary career in this notable chamber which I have been honoured to serve for many years.

It is worth while taking honourable senators back into the past because what happens in the present and what exists in the future is always embedded in the past. This story is well worth telling for the interest and, I hope, the observation of honourable senators. It relates to a notable Australian citizen and a no less notable Australian citizen in world affairs- both of whom are now dead- the late Rt Hon. Herbert Vere Evatt, a distinguished Foreign Minister of Australia, and the late Lord Casey, an equally distinguished one. Both of them were distinguished in their own areas but they both understood 2 things: They understood the existence of the prerogative rights in the conduct of foreign affairs. In early 1950 Lord Casey introduced into this Parliament a measure to set up a foreign affairs committee, which was to be a joint committee of both Houses. The terms under which this committee was to operate were opposed by the late Rt Hon. H. V. Evatt on the grounds that they were restrictive and would inhibit the parliamentary capacity to examine foreign affairs. For that reason from about 1953, as I recall it, until 1 963 or so the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence was not a committee on foreign affairs as we understand it today or the equivalent in the Senate- the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I think your reasons are wrong, Senator. It was because the Democratic Labour Party had the whole say in it.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I am talking about in the early days when Dr Evatt refused to make your Party a party to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, because he argued at that time that Parliament should make its own references to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Lord Casey, for reasons best known to him, dug his heels in. However in 1 963 or thereabouts- I do not want honourable senators to pin me down to the year- by the fortunes of political happenings, I became the Chairman of that Committee. At that stage I had to deal with the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was the Rt Hon. Sir Paul Hasluck. I was able to persuade Sir Paul Hasluck and the members of the Australian Labor Party at that day that the conduct of the Foreign Affairs Committee was too restrictive and that therefore it should be enlarged. Whatever people may say about Sir Paul Hasluck, he was a very distinguished Australian and a very able Foreign Minister. He enlarged the terms of reference that enabled the Australian Labor Party then, 10 years later, to join the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. I became the first Chairman of that true Committee.

I tell this story only because it is important to the argument that I first put forward, that is, that the conduct of foreign affairs is a prerogative power, not a parliamentary power. As a result of this enlargement, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence began to gather some sort of quality and character. I think it has served the Australian Parliament well. The wheels turned and a little further on I became the Chairman of it again. Honourable senators who sit opposite me at the present moment and members of the other place from the opposite side of politics to me are members of that Committee. These are men of inestimable conduct on that Committee. But what we understand on that Committee is this: It is not the function of that Committee to conduct foreign affairs because the moment Parliament attempts to conduct foreign affairs we will get ourselves into the greatest mess of all times. It is impossible for a Parliament to conduct foreign affairs. Foreign affairs must be conducted by the echelon of government which exercises the prerogative power.

So on the gravest of constitutional issues I oppose, first of all, setting up a special Senate select committee to look at an area of foreign affairs. I reject the amendment moved by Senator Missen to the effect that a select committee should be set up to examine a particular area of foreign affairs. This is not the function of the Parliament. If it is the function of the Parliament to do this the matter must go to the appropriate Committee that the Parliament has set up to examine such matters and not to a special committee.

Senator Missen:

– That is what I moved.

Senator GIETZELT:

– That is what the amendment says.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-To the Senate Committee?

Senator Missen:

– Yes.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I just say that it must go to a committee that is capable of examining all aspects of it. I suggest that the original motion and the amendment have been moved in order to bypass the area where the firmest expression on the conduct of foreign affairs can be most readily established, that is, in the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence.

Secondly, it is not for a committee to examine the matters that have been analysed in an emotive way, I suggest, and an honourable way by Senator Wriedt. The function of this motion is for the Parliament to try to exert its function in foreign affairs and defence and to make the Parliament the judge either one way or the other. I suggest that if this motion is carried and the matter goes to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence- I hope the motion is not carried- it is inevitable and almost mandatory that that Committee will then have to investigate the cause of the situation with which we are now confronted.

The Australian Parliament has a responsibility to acknowledge and to recognise that for long after every man here has ceased to sit in the Senate or in another place the relationship between Indonesia and Australia will go on and on. We have to establish a stability in this area in the context, whether we like it or not, of that great nation of 120, 130 or 140 million people- how many people is not important- which lies to our immediate north. We have problems in relation to this country that relate, for example, to the economic zone which is now emerging as the law of the sea- the ability to understand what is going to be the boundary between Indonesian Timor and Australia. Whether we like it or not, we have to obtain friendly relations with this country. Enough has been done- in a most tragic sense, I admit- to exacerbate the relations between this empire or great nation that lies to our north without further exacerbating it at the present moment. Endless opportunities lie at the hands of the Australian Government to repair in a manifest way what may be the wrongdoings that have occurred as a result of indecisions by the Australian Government or, perhaps, improper decisions by the Australian Government over the past five or six years.

It is a harsh and hard thing for me to say, but the fate of future generations of Australians, Timorese and Indonesians is of far greater importance than the brutalities that may or may not have occurred in that area. When I put these things in the balance of human affairs as between nations, however harsh it may sound, it is far more important that the relationship between the 160 or 170 million people who lie to our north and the 14 million people who live in Australia is maintained. It is far more important that the reparations that we as a reasonably wealthy nation can sustain and proffer should be exerted now under the influence of the Government and the Foreign Minister of the Day to exercise the greatest capacity that lies within the Austraiian electorate and the Australian Government to repair the omissions and commissions that have been caused in part because of foolishness on the part of the Australian Government over the past 3 years. It fills me with alarm that we may irreparably damage the relations that will be of manifest importance to a rising generation in Australia- a generation which we cannot see. We should not try to take this matter out of the hands of the present Government which, it seems to me, is making an effort of enormous consequence to establish a relationship between the Indonesian Government and the Australian Government that will allow the Australian Government to intervene, to its maximum capacity, to restore civility, comity and compatibility.

We should try to repair the relationship that has almost been destroyed between the Republic of Indonesia and Australia. Once that relationship can be re-established there exists in the Australian Government and the Australian people a capacity to ameliorate the conditions that have caused so much distress. For the Parliament to attempt to interfere at this time of enormous sensitivity- it is a matter of enormous sensitivity to the Indonesians- would exacerbate that situation and would condemn the East Timorese to a further degree of suffering which I cannot sustain. I say to honourable senators: For heaven’s sake, allow this Government to repair the damage in the relationship between Australia and Indonesia. The reparation of that relationship will enable the Australian Government and the Australian people to mitigate and to obtain satisfaction in the matters that are distressing the Senate and which the Senate is debating tonight. Therefore, I earnestly beseech my Senate colleagues to reject both the motion and the amendment.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– Prior to Senator Sir Magnus Cormack ‘s contribution to this debate I had intended to move an amendment to the original motion to include for consideration other matters which I believed the original motion had left out. Having listened to the contribution of the honourable senator, I recognise that the matters to which he referred merit very careful consideration. However, undertakings have been given so now I will attempt to have the mover of the original motion encompass those areas which I believe have been omitted. This matter has caused me a great deal of personal concern, as I am sure it has given every other member of the Senate. I made a contribution to a debate on this matter on 18 May last year. I recognised as far back as 1974 - because of an association I have in the area- that a situation was developing which could result in grave problems. No good purpose would be served if I were to traverse in my contribution to this debate the sentiments that have been expressed by me previously. I turn now to the subject matter of the motion which was moved by Senator Gietzelt on 24 March this year and which read:

That-

A Select Committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report upon the following matters :

the form of Australian aid to the residents of East Timor;

the plight of refugees from East Timor;

the fate of six (6) Australian journalists in East Timor;

communications between Australia and East Timor;

the position in Timor, including the conflict between Timorese forces and Indonesian forces and the position of the Timorese civilian population, the origins of the conflict and its impact on the Timorese people; and

f) other matters relating to the foregoing.

The remainder of the motion dealt with machinery matters concerning the committee. In passing, I refer to the fact that the machinery parts of the motion were obviously coached in terms similar to those which existed in the then Standing Orders which have been slightly changed. I believe that a deficiency exists in the motion which needs to be examined. I suggest that consideration be given by the Opposition to amending its motion to add, after sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph (1) the following new subparagraphs: (ea) the involvement of the Communist Party of Australia in support of the Fretilin cause in Australia; (eb) the association between Fretilin and other Marxist groups in European and African countries; (ec) the part played by Marxist officers of the Portuguese battalion sent to Timor after the revolution in Portugal; (ed) whether there was any improper action by the Soviet Embassy in offering to assist Mr K.. Fry M.P. in his visit to the United Nations to speak on behalf of the Fretilin cause; (ee) whether or not the Miscellaneous Workers Union has contravened any Australian statutes in facilitating the housing of wireless apparatus in its union offices in Darwin for the purpose of receiving wireless messages from Fretilin guerillas in Timor; (ef) whether or not money given by the Australian Government to Australian aid organisations was used for purposes unrelated to the original intention of the grant or grants, namely, the payment or partpayment of Mr Dunn ‘s fares to European countries; (eg) what briefings, if any, were given to any or all of the six Australian journalists prior to their departure, as to the situation in East Timor and whether the media organisations to which these journalists were reporting should be responsible for additional compensation payments and, if so, how this would be enforced; and other matters relating to the foregoing.

I recognise that some honourable senators in support of their position in respect of this matter have recited a letter that all honourable senators received from the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace. That letter was incorporated in Hansard on 3 1 March 1977. 1 received the letter which was dated 23 March 1977 and was addressed to all members of the Australian Parliament. It was over the signature of Mr Mauro Di Nicola, National Secretary of the Catholic Commision for Justice and Peace. I read the communication with interest and I sent a letter to Mr Di Nicola on 29 March 1977, which stated:

I have received your roneod letter ‘to all Members of the Australian Parliament’ dated 23 March 1977 in which you call for a ‘full and impartial parliamentary inquiry’ into the East Timor subject.

There is a motion (copy enclosed) now before the Senate to establish a Senate inquiry into the East Timor subject. I understand that debate on this subject will be resumed on Thursday, 31 March. I am considering my position on the matter. In the interests of completeness and impartiality -

The words ‘full and impartial parliamentary inquiry ‘ were referred to in the CCJP letter-

I am presently of the opinion that the committee ‘s terms of reference should be expanded to include the following:

The following related to the matters that I have just expressed to the Senate. I received a telegram back from Mr Di Nicola as follows:

Thank you for your letter of 29 March. I would be most unwilling to offer you my personal views on your proposal since in my role as the Commission ‘s secretary they are quite irrelevant. The Commission met a fortnight ago and at that lime it did not have any details of the proposed terms of reference for the East Timor inquiry. The Commission will not meet again until July and since Commission members originate from all over Australia it has been impossible to organise a special meeting to consider the specific suggestions contained in your letter. The stated policy of the Commission is that it supports a full and impartial inquiry into all aspects of the East Timor situation. The Commission is therefore opposed to any attempts to limit either the scope or the impartiality of any parliamentary inquiry on East Timor.

That was signed by Mr Mauro Di Nicola, the National Secretary of the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace. Having regard to the extended areas of inquiry that I am submitting to the Senate, I believe that it is necessary for me to mention briefly why I have included some matters. I emphasise that they are in addition to the subject matters which were referred to by the mover of the original motion, Senator Gietzelt. On 5 October 1976 I asked a question of the

Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Withers, in the following terms:

Is the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that a telex message concerning the illegal radio transmitter in Darwin, sent yesterday from a Mr Denis Freney of the Campaign for an Independent East Timor to the offices of the Canberra Times, was in fact sent from the offices of the Communist Party newspaper Tribune? Is the Minister aware that the Communist Party has adopted double standards on the matter of self-determination, having refused to support this right for the West New Guineans at the time of the takeover of West New Guinea by the Sukarno regime, which was then in close contact with the Soviet Union, a communist country? Does the Minister have any information on the involvement of the Communist Party in the East Timor issue? Would he agree that the involvement of the Communist Party has hindered moves for Timorese self-determination rather than assist them?

In the reply which I received the Minister advised that he referred the subject of my question to the Attorney-General. The Minister’s reply to me dated 12 April 1977 stated:

The matter of the Communist Party involvement and its effect was referred to my colleague the Attorney-General, who has furnished the following reply:

The Communist Party of Australia is involved in the Timor issue in Australia through the participation of some of its members in the “Campaign for an Independent East Timor”. I will not speculate on the effect of that involvement on the situation in Timor. ‘

The other matters to which I have referred have been canvassed in this House and I will not delay debate on this matter by going over them. I would like to refer particularly to the final portion of my suggestion, which reads:

What briefings, if any, were given to any or all of the six Australian journalists prior to their departure, as to the situation in East Timor and whether the media organisations to which these journalists were reporting should be responsible for additional compensation payments and, if so, how this would be enforced; and other matters relating to the foregoing.

It is all very well for these newspaper proprietors and media areas to have pious editorials about the loss of the newsmen in East Timor, but who has blood on their hands? If these media moguls did not give these journalists a proper briefing prior to their departure, who has blood on their hands?

Senator Mcintosh:

– Are your hands clean?

Senator HARRADINE:

-1 do not know what the honourable senator means. I refer him to my previous contribution on this issue. I have taken a consistent attitude and in respect of the matter in 1962. In respect of the latter point I believe that there is also a need for an investigation and that a Senate inquiry could properly investigate such a subject. I consider, as does the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace- people seem to be quoting that organisation all the time along with unnamed religious sources here, there and everywhere- that the terms of reference should be unlimited. I commend to the Opposition the additions to the motion to see whether it is prepared in the interests of a full inquiry to include them. I suggest that the Opposition also has a look at the machinery matters and brings them into line with those under the Standing Orders.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– I rise to support the motion moved by my colleague, Senator Gietzelt. My contribution will be brief and simple. Previous speakers have drawn attention to their personal contact with Timor. Perhaps I can do the same by way of introduction. I first visited Timor in 1 965. Like other speakers I was impressed by the friendliness of the people who live in that wonderful country. The travels which I made around the place showed me the reason for the justifiable pride the people have in their country. Like others I visited places connected with Australian servicemen. I went to the memorial pool and to other places. I appreciated the feeling of the guides who took me to those places when they made comments such as: ‘We helped you, you will help us’. Without saying it an implied debt existed.

On this and subsequent occasions when I visited Timor I met many more friends and, like others, sent things over to them. I had a later opportunity to make a brief study of the educational system of Timor. As a result of that I sent education material over to the group of friends I was making in Timor. When the disasters happened in 1975, like many more people in Darwin, I tried to help those who were worried about their relatives in Timor. I had daily contact with the Department of Foreign Affairs and was disturbed at that time, as I have been since, at the attitude of that Department. Either it did not know what was going on or it was not prepared to tell us. We knew more in Darwin than the Department of Foreign Affairs appeared to know in Canberra. But still, that is not the point.

When the refugees arrived I was in the fortunate position of being able to set up a school for them. Within 2 weeks, as I might have mentioned previously in this place, we were able to have a school operating with Timorese, Portuguese and Chinese teachers and books in the Portuguese and Chinese languages. I might mention the help that was given then by the Red Cross which at that time had access to Timor and the help given by others who were able to fly in and out of Timor. We had an accelerated course for older students and adults and were able to provide some sort of assistance to them when they arrived in the Territory. Since that time, like many others, I have been involved with the refugees who have come to Darwin. I have assisted some of them with the problems they brought with them. I shall refer to the present situation in Darwin. That is the only situation on which I can comment. I think we can identify 3 groups related to the Timor situation existing in Darwin at present. I mean no discourtesy by categorising them in this way. I am sure they will take no offence. The first group is the Chinese Timorese group, a large group comprised of Chinese people who either were born in Timor or lived there. The second group I might call the Portuguese Timorese, those people of Portuguese extraction, of mixed marriages. The third group is an indigenous Timorese group. It is a very small group at present since most have moved away from Darwin. As I have indicated, the Chinese group is the largest group operating in Darwin at present. It has a very active committee working to try to bring their relatives out from Timor.

I shall not mention names but I should like to commend the efforts of the people who are working in this area. They are finding jobs and accommodation for their relatives. They are getting as many as they can out of Timor. They make the claim that they ask little of the Government. During the parliamentary recess I met with these groups once again and put a number of questions to them. I feel that in this debate we need the expressions of views of the people who are most involved. They are the people who have relatives in Timor. I put the questions to them either individually or at small meetings and comparatively large meetings of 80 to 100 people. The first question concerned the investigation which is proposed in the motion we are discussing tonight. I explained to them the motion and the amendment moved to it. They seemed to understand the motion but could not see any reason for the amendment. I certainly did not bother to explain the intricacies of that.

What was the answer given by these 3 groups to the question about the need for an investigation? If any one is concerned, if anyone ought to be making a decision, it is the people who are living in Darwin and in the rest of Australia who have relatives in Timor. It was quite clear that all the groups saw a need for an investigation of the situation in Timor along the lines we proposed in the motion. The only difference was that some groups saw the investigation taking place a little later than the others. I might go through each one in turn and indicate what the reaction was. The Chinese group was particularly concerned about the attitudes and policies of the Australian governments-both of them. They were particularly concerned about the fate of the journalists. They were particularly concerned about the situation that existed in those few short weeks at the end of 1975. They thought that we should have an investigation at a later time, after their relatives have been brought out. They stressed to me very strongly the concept of the extended family which is so important to the Chinese people. They expressed the view that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) surely could not understand what the Chinese meant by family when he had made a limitation to what we understand perhaps in Australia as the nuclear family.

It has been estimated that between 450 and 1000 people might want to come to Darwin under the nuclear family situation. That gives some indication of the numbers involved when we look at the rest of Australia. The Portuguese Timorese, as I have called them, said that we must have an investigation now. They said that they must know what is going on in Timor. The Timorese, the other group, said that we must have a full investigation now. They said that they must know what is going on in Timor. It was quite clear from all groups that there must be an investigation. These are the people, of course, who will suffer if anything happens to their relatives in Timor. The second question concerned the signing of the letter which had been sent out from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. For the benefit of honourable senators I shall read the letter which was sent from the Department to all the people who were nominating their relatives to come to Australia. It stated:

I am writing to you in connection with your nomination for the admission to Australia of your relatives/friends resident in East Timor.

Before any Australian Immigration action can proceed in East Timor, it will be necessary for you to give your written agreement, in the form shown below, to details of your nominees being given to the Indonesian authorities.

Should it be possible to finalise arrangements for a visit by an Australian Immigration Team to East Timor, the Indonesian authorities will arrange for the location of your nominees and their attendance at the Immigration Processing Centre in Dili.

If you are prepared to give this authority please sign the attachment below and return it to this Office immediately.

The letter was signed by the Regional Director. The form that the group was asked to sign was addressed to the Regional Director. It stated:

I agree that the names and addresses of my nominees may be provided to the Indonesian authorities so that they may be located and assembled for Australian immigration processing in East Timor.

The reaction to that was fairly dramatic. All people expressed fear of Indonesia. They said:

We do not want to have to send that sort of document over’. They feared for the safety of those who might not be allowed out once the form had been signed and sent over. One of them went so far as to suggest that we limit the signing of the form to relate to only those who would be assured of being accepted for immigration. We all know that that would be impossible, given the regulation. There was a very strong fear that the Indonesians would take action against those people who were nominated in the forms because they had associations with people in Australia. They suggested that if the Australian team went over it might take these letters and assist the Indonesians in locating their relatives. They suggested that there might be more chance of finding them alive. I am simply repeating what was said to me by the people in Darwin. They suggested that these nominations might be processed with the Australians watching very closely.

Another point came out of this fear of Indonesia. One of the gentlemen said to me: Why does Australia not show strength? Do you not understand our culture?’ I thought of the story that Senator Mcintosh tells of Panngabean and his comment about strength being the very important quality in the Indonesian culture. The third question I put to these people was whether they would like to see an independent state of Timor within the total Indonesian empire, as Senator Sir Magnus Cormack called it earlier. This was totally rejected by all. I do not think that we were surprised about that. There was particularly strong opposition from the Portuguese Timorese and the Timorese. The Chinese were not particularly interested but they said that they did not think it was a good idea. The next question I asked was perhaps the most important. I asked whether there were any particular worries that they had living in Australia. The first worry was that of health. They said that the radio had reported that cholera and mumps were rife in East Timor and that no medicines were available. People who had money or had relatives in Indonesia who had money were able to send medicines across. The medicines that were supposed to be part of the Australian aid referred to by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) in his speech had not been heard of. People had never seen any aid in the form of medicines.

Of course, the safety of relatives was of paramount importance to them. I have already mentioned the fear of Indonesia that so many of them had. This was understandable. I wish I had some of the skills of the people who have spoken already in this debate and others who have not entered it. I can paint a picture for honourable senators of one interview I had when I met with a group of Portuguese Timorese, a group of 7 men aged perhaps from 28 years to 50 years, all of whom were immersed in their national cause. A young man fluent in the language was able to translate what was coming over the radio. Others were grasping for words but they were, nevertheless, dignified. An older man told me with some pride that he had been trained as a parachutist by the Australians. I felt a little twinge of conscience because that indicated that he had been selected among those who had helped the Australians when they were in Timor.

We were listening to Radio Maubere. There was some music and the interpreter told me that it was good Timorese music. There were smiles on the faces of people in the group. The first message that came over was a call for the United States team to ask to visit Fretilin leaders and the reaction around that group of 7 people was that that was a good idea; let the Americans talk to the Fretilin leaders and find out what was going on. The second message was that 3 Fretilin leaders in the area where the congressional team was going to visit had been shot that day. There was a shock and a sense of quiet anger because some of the group had known these leaders personally. A third message came over that the Indonesians were not respecting the Timorese women. Again there was silence and a young man leaned across to me and said: ‘Respect of women is very important in Timor’. There was silence because the older man had 2 teenage daughters still in Timor.

One can understand the frustration of that group of people and the others, the feeling of impotence with friends dying and daughters being raped and there was nothing one could do about it. I suggest that honourable senators put themselves in that position for a moment and wonder how they would feel. How would they feel in the situation of those men standing there listening to the radio and getting that terrible information? And, of course, following this automatically, was their lack of communication. Those people said: ‘We cannot contact the people; we cannot get information; we cannot find out what our relatives and friends are doing’. This group was extremely critical of the Australian Government for taking away from them the transmitter that would have given them contact with their people. I can fully understand why they were critical. If honourable senators think about it for a moment they will feel a little hurt too. They will find it difficult to understand why regulations can override humanity in a case such as this.

Of course, these people are doing something about it. A transmitter is to be set up and, as honourable senators may have noticed in today’s Press, a petition has been circulated around Australia. It might be as well if I read that petition into Hansard. It states:

We the undersigned citizens from all walks of life support the establishment of a radio transmitter receiver in Darwin shortly to allow 2-way contact between Australia and East Timor to-

Allow contact with East Timor Red Cross to discover the humanitarian needs of the East Timorese people in Fretilin controlled areas.

Allow East Timorese refugees here and in Portugal to exchange messages with relatives and friends in Fretilin controlled areas, and

Allow journalists to interview Fretilin leaders so that their views can be put before the world.

We regret that the Overseas Telecommunications Commission has refused to allow contact with Fretilin controlled areas of East Timor while re-establishing telegraphic links with Indonesian-controlled areas. We call on all Australians to give full moral and financial support to the Darwin public radio transmitter receiver.

It does not seem much to ask. Already 300 people in Darwin have signed that petition and many more are signing it around Australia. Those people who were in the war will remember the anguish of not knowing- of fearing the worst and hoping for the best but not knowing what was going on.

The Chinese group had another worry. They were concerned at the loss of human rights of their people who are in Timor. The loss of property, built up over the years, was only secondary. More importantly though, they were concerned at the loss of dignity. This is so important to the Chinese people.

The other worry that came up was the false impression being created for the benefit of the visiting United States team. I think honourable senators might recall that this concept was supported by the United States team when it said that its members were going on a guided tour. A statement was issued on 16 April this year by the Timorese people in Darwin and I will read one extract from it. It stated:

We know that Indonesian troops were dressing in civilian clothes during the American Congress members’ visit to Dili. All the war materials were hidden. We heard this on Radio Maubere

This statement was supported by a report in the Age today which stated in part:

Another confidential intelligence message has described what Indonesia did to present visiting American congressmen with a favourable picture of Timor.

The Indonesians took steps to ensure that people to be interviewed by the congressional committee were sounded out in advance by Indonesian officials.

In the case of at least one Timor community leader, the Indonesians were not satisfied that his evidence would be satisfactory and arranged that he not appear before the committee.

The Indonesians also ordered the removal of the more obvious signs of their military presence from areas the committee was to visit.

The final comment from the group in Darwin was this:

If Australia and Indonesia were sincere they should let International Red Cross into East Timor immediately, according to the Geneva Convention and the United Nations.

The last concern which I had was that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has adopted the rather unusual practice of saying to people who are nominating refugees to come out, firstly, ‘Are you a Fretilin supporter?’, and secondly, ‘Is the person you wish to bring out a Fretilin supporter?’. I take exception to this action. It seems hardly appropriate for a department to ask these questions, particularly when we are looking at a refugee situation.

Before voting on this motion I would ask honourable senators in this place to try to put themselves in the position of the refugees in Darwin at this time. For some it would be hard to imagine, but those honourable senators on both sides of the chamber with war experience- there are in this place many with very distinguished records- will think back to those times of privation. Perhaps those honourable senators who have not had this sort of experience, those who were spared it, might talk with those who have had it. Honourable senators might recall feelings of being separated, might consider how it feels to have their families in enemy occupied territory, and sense the anguish which these people might have. I ask honourable senators to put aside the politically motivated arguments that we have heard, the spurious arguments like the whole matter being a case of Senator Gietzelt having a go at Whitlam, as somebody put it. Put aside the situation of communists hiding under the bed. The issue is far too important for that. That is the sort of debating club exercise we can do without. Before honourable senators vote on this motion I ask them to look at the humanitarian issues involved. Think of the debt that we owe our Timorese ex-comrades, and I use the word ‘comrades’ in the best sense of the word. To paraphrase that verse we all know so well: At the going down of the sun and in the morning will we remember them?

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-For 3 nights now we have debated the setting up of a committee of the Senate to investigate the Timorese problem or referring that matter to a standing committee of the Senate. If the proposition fails at least we have the satisfaction of knowing that for 3 nights honourable senators have spoken on the matter and have expressed their points of view. Practically every honourable senator has done so. Others who have not spoken have listened with keen interest. Throughout the whole debate there has been a sincere desire on the part of honourable senators to take party politics out of the debate and in my opinion, with one or two exceptions, that desire has succeeded.

What the Opposition is proposing, and what some supporters of the Government are proposing, is that a committee of the Australian Parliament should undertake an inquiry and make a determination upon the events which have occurred in East Timor. Essentially, that is what we desire. It is not sufficient for the executive government to make a declaration. It is not sufficient for a United States congressional inquiry to make a determination. It is the responsibility of this Parliament, this Senate, through a committee, to seek out the facts available and to determine the truth of the submissions brought before it. I think the Senate would fulfil the role that it has established for itself over many years if it were to take upon itself the responsibility of such an inquiry. As far is many members of the Opposition are concerned it matters not whether the original motion as supported or whether the amendment proposed by Senator Missen is supported. There can be no question that the inquiry would determine what it would mainly endeavour to determine, that is, the position of the East Timorese, especially the refugees now in Portugal and the many who are now in Australia. It would be able to make some recommendation to the Government as to what sort of support should flow from Australia to East Timor and to the refugees of East Timor. It would be able to seek out information and make a recommendation regarding the death of the 6 journalists and to undertake an inquiry as to the position of the families of the 6 journalists and whether they have been suitably compensated for the loss of their men in East Timor. It seems to me to be the role of a Senate committee, whether it be a standing committee or a Senate select committee, to undertake such an inquiry.

My view is that members of the Senate committee will take that non-partisan position that is often taken on committees and seek out the truth and make the necessary recommendations. I do not think we have anything to fear from such an inquiry; nor should we back away from an inquiry because it may embarrass the Indonesians. One could fairly describe the Indonesians as a people governed by a group of military generals who have sought to impose upon the East Timorese- they have practically succeeded in doing so- a military solution, with great hardship to many people and with great loss of life. We should not take into consideration the so-called sensitivity of which Senator Sir Magnus Cormack spoke or the sensitivity that these generals may express. We should put that to one side and proceed with our inquiry because I believe that for the period of the inquiry there will be an endeavour on the part of the Indonesians to put the best face on the situation. We may indirectly alleviate the suffering in East Timor and other places. There may be a better understanding or a better response on the part of the Indonesians to very many propositions that will be put to them by refugees and relatives of refugees if there is a current inquiry in Australia on the matter of East Timor.

Some senators expressed their point based on their practical experience and with great sincerity and knowledge. One felt a sympathy with them, and I think the sympathy has flowed to them from both sides. That is not the position in regard to other speakers. I must say that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack repelled me when he placed his opposition to the inquiry in these terms: We should not do anything in any way by an inquiry which may antagonise the Indonesians; we should continue to appease them. I say to Senator Sir Magnus Cormack that what we have done and what we are continuing to do in this soft appeasement of the Indonesian generals may set the pattern for future treatment of Australians and the Australian nation. I put it to the senator that Australia is in no more favourable position than Chile or the people of Chile who became a sacrifice to the power manoeuvrings of great nations. I also put it to the senator that Australia is in no more favourable position than the people of Greece who found themselves subjected to military dictatorship because of the manoeuvrings of major powers. It is quite possible that Australia will find itself in the same position, of being considered expendable in the face of some threat from the north. Each step that we have taken over the past 12 months seems to have encouraged the Indonesians to consider themselves a major power in the region. The subtle references by the Indonesian Foreign Minister must give little comfort to many of us.

Tonight we seek to have a vote on this proposition. The matter has been debated for long enough. I make an appeal to those who may have some doubts on this matter. The inquiry will do no harm but will advance the position of Australia in these considerations. It will certainly aid the Timorese people and will not disadvantage them. It will certainly seek out information concerning the death of the 6 journalists. It will not be an embarrassment to Australia. Perhaps it may be an embarrassment to Indonesia. According to a statement by the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Mr Malik, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald today, we are still friends. In the concluding paragraph Mr Malik said that one of the reasons why we are still friends is that Indonesia might want more aid from Australia.That is the subtlety of Indonesia’s approach. It has managed to carry out a completely inhumane exercise in East Timor. It is satisfied that Australia has acquiesced in this situation. It is satisfied that in spite of its actions it may still come to Australia for aid and receive aid.

My opinion is that we should carry out an inquiry, ignore the Indonesian reaction and seek out the truth for ourselves. It might not be what we expect. Nevertheless, the Australian Parliament will reach its own conclusions. My view is that either of the propositions can and should be supported. I do not know the purpose of Senator Harradine ‘s suggested amendment. If it can lead to an inquiry by some committee of this Parliament it should be supported. We should not back away from an inquiry.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– On 17 March and each Thursday night since on which the Senate has sat it has debated my motion for the establishment of a Senate select committee to examine a number of features of the tragedy- as it has been described by every senator in this debate- of East Timor. I think it is interesting to note that in the debate this evening and on other evenings no senator, whether Government, Independent or Opposition, has endeavoured to defend the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia on 7 December 1975. As the debate has unfolded it has become apparent that every honourable senator who has spoken has, in retrospect, accepted some measure of responsibility for the events which have occurred over the last 1 8 months or so. Just 3 years ago on 25 April, that is on Anzac Day 1974, the Portuguese armed forces movement overthrew the oldest dictatorship in the world. As Senator Sir Magnus Cormack said in his contribution, there then began a process of decolonisation or decay of an old colonial empire. While there may be some merit in what the honourable senator said about the inability of the Senate, the Parliament or the citizens of this country to concern themselves with the events which have taken place in Africa, the fact is that senators and members of the national Parliament have concerned themselves with the events of Portuguese East Timor in the almost 3 years since the dictatorship collapsed in Portugal. The right of self-determination of the people of East Timor which had been occupied by Portugal for centuries was placed on the agenda. Suddenly they were confronted with the possibility of determining their own affairs, of establishing their own form of government.

In one way or another a considerable number of members of the national Parliament, perhaps more particularly honourable senators, have shown some interest in the turn of events in subsequent years. I think it would be wrong for the Senate and, for that matter, for the Parliament to suggest that the interest which we are expressing about Timor has some party political objective. It was suggested by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Withers- I regret the use of his words- that I was seeking a witch hunt in what has happened in the past, a witch hunt into the misdemeanours of my current leader. I think that sort of approach to the problems of self-determination and of human suffering in Timor is to be regretted. Nothing is gained by involving ourselves, either as individuals or as a collective will of the Senate, into a witch hunt or into determining who was right or who was wrong in the tragedy which every honourable senator acknowledges has taken place in Timor.

We have the spirit of this motion. The motivation of my Party has been not to apportion blame, although each and every one of us would have a point of view about the matter, but to give to the Parliament the right to call whatever evidence is available to study the facts as we are able to assemble them and to make a recommendation to the Senate. Of course, the committee which we seek to set up gives the majority vote to the Government. Inbuilt into the committee which we proposed should be appointed we give the Government the majority of the membership. I do not suggest that the committee would, at any stage, do other than carry out an objective analysis of what is able to be established in fact and what were the circumstances relating to the events in Timor. For the record and for Government senators who may have been influenced by the intemperate language of Senator Withers, let me state clearly that a motion was placed under general business for my Party by Senator Georges. It was referred to my Party’s Foreign

Affairs Committee. Arising out of that Committee’s deliberations and considerations of the issue of Timor, a motion was forwarded back to the executive of my Party.

Arising out of that, the federal parliamentary Labor Party unanimously established the motion which is placed before the Senate for its consideration. I was honoured to be selected by the Leader of my Party in the Senate, Senator Wriedt, to move the motion because of my consistent interest in the problems of East Timor. I think suggestions that there is some other motivation, some other purpose or something unnecessary to be considered by the Senate can be shown to be untrue. I assert most decidedly that it is not the intention that we should use the Senate for this purpose. I believe that when Senator Withers was debating another question involving the rights of individuals in the Senate in September 1974, he stated in relation to Senator Willesee when we were talking about the problems of Timor:

I believe he has no sensitivity on human rights.

What has to be stressed is that there is in this chamber, in the Parliament, a sensitivity on human rights which transcends party politics, factions and political attitudes. There is a concern for the rights of people and a concern for the rights of the people of East Timor. It is a concern about the fundamental principle of the right of people to determine their own affairs. I do not know what a Senate select committee could find. But I do not think we should shirk our responsibilities and not give the committee the opportunity to examine the issues on Timor.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack in his contribution tonight, which I think I can say was measured with a certain degree of moderation, suggested that there was some attitude in this place- obviously he was referring not only to the Opposition but also to members of his own Party- of selective morality. I do not think there is any credence in that assertion, nor in his view that because of the way events have unfolded in South Africa we are inconsistent in our concern as we have not taken up the issues which have developed in that part of the world. The fact is of course, that at the end of the Second World War some 64 nations established the United Nations. That number has now grown to 140. In a variety of ways those seventy-six or more countries have established their own form of government and self-determination. None of us can ever suggest that we have approved of every way in which those countries have won nationhood. No one would ever suggest that we approve of the course of action which every country took as it established its independence and was admitted to the United Nations organisation.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, in relation to South Africa, has failed to understand that the United Nations, by an overwhelming majority and in many cases by votes in excess of ninety with a small number of countries abstaining and with one or two countries in opposition- often countries like Spain- called upon the rest of the United Nations organisation to assist in decolonisation and in the movement for independence in Africa. The United Nations similarly has dealt with the issue of East Timor. It would not be proper for me to say that some members of the Government might have had a selective attitude in respect of other events in South East Asia but we are not now trying to apportion blame or to establish who was right on the question of Vietnam or in regard to our relationships with China or whether Angola, Mozambique or Chile acted in this and that sort of a way. What we are concerned about is an activity or tragedy that took place in our nearest neighbour. It is something that happened within our own region.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has said that if he has to weigh up- I think they were the words that he used- the question of whether he should be concerned about the few people in Timor or about the future generations of Australians and Indonesians he would have to concern himself with the future and not with the present. I am afraid that is a logic and a morality that I cannot accept and I hope that it is a logic and a morality that the majority of members of the national Parliament will not accept. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that on 2 occasions a considerable number of members of all political parties in the national Parliament have publicly expressed an attitude about the rights of people in East Timor. After all, that view about the future generations was one of the views that was expressed in 1938 and 1939 by the then Prime Minister of England, Mr Chamberlain, when he talked of peace in our time and said that he was saving the future generations from war. That was to be proved to be so illogically and so immorally wrong in the short space of a few months after that. What has to be clearly drawn from the lessons of history is that aggression begets aggression and that is what is taking place in our region. It took place in West Irian, it is taking place in Timor and we cannot be sure that it will not take place again in our region.

What honourable senators on the Government side have to do, because clearly the Government has the majority support in the Senate, is to weigh up the questions of whether Indonesia can be trusted now and in the future, whether Indonesia’s behaviour is satisfactory from the point of view of our relationship with that country and our relationship with a small country like Timor and whether Indonesia is prepared to carry out the behest of the United Nations. I put it to the Senate that there is abundant evidence to indicate that we cannot regard Indonesia as being a monolith, that we cannot regard Indonesia as having one point of view, that there are not forces within Indonesia, within the Indonesian Parliament and within the Indonesian leadership whose views do not accord with the views expressed by a number of us in this place. Just as there are serious doubts about Indonesia’s attitude to Australia, and I say that from an all party point of view, so there are serious doubts within the Indonesian Government itself, and there is evidence to show that we should be aiding the forces of moderation that exist in Indonesia. We should not be aiding those forces that have succeeded in imposing their will upon the Indonesian Government.

I want to refer the Senate to an Indonesian newspaper printed in English and distributed weekly called The Asian- this copy was published in the week from 17 to 23 September 1972- so that we can appreciate the views that were expressed at that stage about the relationship between Indonesia and Timor and what happened in the subsequent years. The article states:

The Portuguese Governor of Timor, Colonel Fernando Alves Alderia is known on both sides . . .

Here we are talking of the Timorese side as well as the Indonesian side-

As a ‘good man’, anxious not only to develop his pan of the island, but also to develop good relations with the Indonesians. Colonel El Tari, the Governor of Indonesian Timor, told me that he ‘gets along nicely’ with Governor Alderia

Mr Rosihan Anwar of the Asian News Service who wrote the article in this publication which is freely published in Jakarta said:

I was present at a very significant encounter that took place between General Ali Murtopo and a student of the Undana University of Kupang. The student fired the first shot.

I want to remind the Senate of who General Ali Murtopo is. He was the general who masterminded the invasion of Dili and the other parts of Timor on 7 December 1975. In this article the student in his interview with the General is quoted as saying:

We want Portuguese Timor back in the Indonesian fold. What is your opinion?

The article continues:

Why do you want Portuguese Timor? Have you any knowledge of a legal foundation for this? the General retorted.

Yes’ responded the student. ‘In ancient times we had a Rajah here who could boldly say ‘My kingdom knows no bounds ‘ ‘.

General Ali Murtopo explained, very thoughtfully: ‘West Irian was our last national territorial claim. That was the part of the former Dutch East Indies territory which did not revert to us when sovereignty was transferred to us on December 27, 1 949. Portuguese Timor was never part of the Dutch East Indies. Therefore we have no claim on it. We have got back West Irian now. And I had my share of the fighting there’.

He went on to describe some of the conflict and experiences in the West Irian invasion. So the Indonesians themselves have acknowledged that they had no territorial ambitions and no legal foundation for wanting to incorporate that part of Portuguese Timor into Indonesia. Of the various spokesmen to whom I have repeatedly referred in my contributions in the Senate, Mr Malik, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, has gone on public record as saying that Indonesia had no territorial ambitions in Timor. Time and again he has been associated with those sentiments. So we are entitled to say that whilst we appreciate that relationships with Indonesia have a special place, Indonesia’s record in this respect leaves very much to be desired. I am unable to accept the very specious argument- I find it to be ill-conceived- that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack put before the Senate this evening that the Parliament should not interfere in a matter of foreign affairs. That is what he put before us. He said that it was one of the prerogatives of

Government. It was not the role of the Parliament to concern itself with foreign affairs. He said that baldly and boldly in the face of the fact that we have not only a Senate Select Committee dealing with foreign affairs and defence but also a Joint Parliamentary Committee. Surely it is within our province as members of this Parliament, as elected representatives of the Australian people, as citizens as well as humanitarians, as those concerned with the rights of others, to make a determination and, I suggest, a favourable determination on this motion.

I suggest to the Senate that some of the arguments that have been used- that we should not concern ourselves with evidence; that we should not concern ourselves with history; that we should not concern ourselves with past events- have been dealt with very adequately by honourable senators opposite as well as by honourable senators from my own Party. This evening Senator Harradine suggested that we should do what Senator Withers suggested should not be done, and that is to engage ourselves in a party political exercise, in some sort of witch hunt; that we should discount the very strong feeling that exists in so many non-political quarters in Australia for a public airing of the issues of Timor. He suggested that we should examine the moguls of the Press, to use his words, in respect to the 6 Australian journalists who went there simply for the purpose of establishing objective facts. Mr President, I understand that I am obliged to seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 10.3 p.m.

page 925

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Department of Transport: Apprentices (Question No. 154)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of Transport since 1 July 1970.
  2. ) By branch, for each year from 1 970 to 1 976, what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged.
  3. In 1977 what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged in each branch of the Department.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Since 1977 apprentices have been employed in the following trades: plumber, painter, fitter and turner, sheet metal worker, radio tradesman, welder, motor mechanic, carpenter, instrument maker, electrical tradesman, refrigeration mechanic, electrical fitter, electrical fitter and mechanic.
  2. All apprentices employed in Airways Engineering, Airports or Navigational Aids Branches:
  1. (a) 146 (b)Nil.

Department of Defence: Apprentices (Question No. 157)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of Defence since 1 July 1970.
  2. By branch, for each year from 1970 to 1976, what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged.
  3. In 1977, what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged in each branch of the Department.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The trades in which apprentices have been employed in the Department of Defence since 1 July 1970 are: blacksmith, boilermaker/welder, carpenter and joiner, coppersmith, electrician, electrician fitter, electrical mechanic, electro-plater, engine smith, fitter machinist, fitter and turner, french polisher, instrument maker, joiner and moulder, optical finisher, painter decorator, painter signwriter, pattern maker, plumber, radio electronics, radio tradesman, refrigeration mechanic/serviceman, sail maker, sheet metal worker, shipwright/boat builder, upholsterer, welder, wood machinist.
  2. and (3)

Attorney-General’s Department: Apprentices (Question No. 159)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Attorney-General’s Department since1 July 1970.
  2. By branch, for each year from 1970 to 1976 what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged.
  3. In 1977, what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged in each branch of the Department.
Senator Durack:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

No apprentices are employed in the Attorney-General’s Department as it is currently constituted. Information is not available in the Department, in respect of areas transferred to other Departments as a result of changes in the Administrative Arrangements Order between 1970 and 1977.

Department of Business and Consumer Affairs: Apprentices (Question No. 160)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs since 1 July 1970.
  2. By branch, for each year from 1970 to 1976, what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged.
  3. In 1977, what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged in each branch of the Department.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. to (3) Nil.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Apprentices (Question No. 162)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs since 1 July 1970.
  2. 2 ) By branch, for each year from 1 970 to 1 976, what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged.
  3. In 1977, what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged, in each branch of the Department:
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has not employed any apprentices since 1 July 1970.
  2. See(l) above.
  3. See ( 1) above

Postal and Telecommunications Department: Apprentices (Question No. 164)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of Postal and Telecommunications since 1 July 1970.
  2. 2 ) By branch, for each year from 1 970 to 1 976 what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged.
  3. In 1977, what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged in each branch of the Department.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Since the establishment of my Department on 1 July 1 975 no apprentices have been employed.
  2. (a) and (b) Nil.
  3. (a) and (b) Nil.

Department of Construction: Apprentices (Question No. 165)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of Construction since 1 July 1970.
  2. By branch, for each year from 1970 to 1976, what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged.
  3. In 1977, what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged, in each branch of the Department.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question.

  1. 1 ) Trades in which apprentices have been employed in the Department of Construction since 1 July are:

Bricklaying, Bridge and Wharf Carpentry, cabinet making, carpentry and joinery, carpet laying, electrical fitting /mechanics, auto electrician, fitting and turning, diesel fitting, wood machining, motor mechanics, refrigeration mechanics, painting, plastering, plumbing, saw doctoring, sheet metal working, signwriting, spray painting, and welding.

  1. and (3) The position regarding the number of apprentices employed by the Department as at the close of each financial year commencing 1970-71 is listed below:

Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development: Apprentices (Question No. 166)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development since 1 July 1970.
  2. By branch, for each year from 1970-1976, what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged.
  3. In 1977, what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged in each branch of the Department.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development was formally created on 22 December, 1975. The current functional activities of the Department provide no opportunities for the employment of apprentices and I foreshadow that this situation will not change in the future.

Department of Veterans’ Affairs: Apprentices (Question No. 169)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs since 1 July 1970.
  2. by branch, for each year from 1970 to 1976, what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged.
  3. In 1977, what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged in each branch of the Department.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Cooking.
  2. and (3)-

Department of Productivity: Apprentices (Question No. 170)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of Productivity since 1 July 1970?
  2. By branch, for each year from 1970 to 1976 what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged?
  3. In 1977, what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged in each branch of the Department?
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Productivity has provided the following answer to the honorable senator’s question:

The details which follow regarding the various establishments which are now part of the Department of Productivity are taken back to 1 970 although the department did not exist under that name prior to 8 November 1976.

Apprentices have been employed in the following trades since i July 1970 aircraft fitter, fitter and turner, fitter and machinist, machinist, toolmaker, instrument maker, instrument maker (aircraft), electrician (aircraft), electrical fitter, electrical fitter (auto), electrical mechanic, boilermaker/welder, welder, sheetmetal worker, blacksmith, heat treatment tradesman, electro-plater, patternmaker, moulder, motor mechanic, motor trimmer, panel beater, spray painter, painter and decorator, carpenter and joiner, wood machinist, refrigeration mechanic, radio tradesman, bricklayer, plumber, plumber/leadburner, cutter (Clothing trade), viewing machine mechanic.

The following table gives details of apprentices employed during the period 1970 to 1976 and (3) the number employed in 1977:

DEPARTMENT OF PRODUCTIVITY

Apprentice statistics 1970 to 1977

a Total Employed. b 1st Year Engagements.

Medical Charges (Question No. 177)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

Is the Government currently considering a large increase in medical charges as was suggested in the newsletter Inside Canberra, dated 25 February 1977. If so, what are the details.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Government is not currently considering a large increase in medical charges.

It is assumed that the honourable senator is referring to the statement in the newsletter Inside Canberra, made in the context of possible cuts in Government expenditure, that ‘A large increase in Medibank charges, for example, is being looked at’.

On 17 February 1977 the Prime Minister tabled the Report of the Committee on Care of the Aged and the Infirm which recommended an increased role for private health insurance in the funding of nursing home care. The statement in the newsletter may refer to this recommendation which will be considered by the Government.

Fraser Island: Sand Mining (Question No. 179)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

When were the mining companies involved in sand mining on Fraser Island first informed of the Federal Government’s decision relating to the recommendations of the Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry, and by whom were they informed:

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

On 1 1 November, 1 976, officers of the Department of National Resources contacted officials of the companies involved in sandmining on Fraser Island to confirm that the companies were aware of the public announcement of the

Government’s decision. This had been made in my statement to Parliament on the previous evening. Copies of the text of the statement were sent to the companies by the Department of National Resources on 1 1 and 12 November in further confirmation of the decision.

Commonwealth Employment Service (Question No. 185)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

Was the report by Greg Hartung in the Australian dated 25 February 1977, entitled ‘250 boost for CES staff incorrect in stating that ‘a confidential government report shows that more than 141 000 people registered as unemployed voluntarily resigned their jobs’ and that the people concerned constituted 40 per cent of those registered as unemployed and receiving the dole ‘? If so, what are the details:

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The report was incorrect. Mr Norgard, to whom the report referred, has so far submitted only one interim statement to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, on 7 February 1977. This did not refer to unemployed persons who had voluntarily resigned their jobs, but concerned increased staff and equipment for the Commonwealth Employment Service.

On 1 February 1977 the Australian Bureau of Statistics published a preliminary bulletin summarising the results of a sample survey of persons looking for work which it had conducted in November 1976.

Among information provided by the report was a statement that of the 147 600 persons looking for work who had been wage or salary earners in their last job in 1 976, 38. 1 per cent had left of their own accord.

It is not known, and the sample survey did not in fact seek to discover, what proportion of those persons who had left work voluntarily were registered as unemployed with the CES and in receipt of unemployment benefit.

Fire Brigades: Financing and Co-ordination (Question No. 188)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

What reply did the Prime Minister give to the submission from the Insurance Council of Australia, dated 24 November 1976, relating to the financing and co-ordination of fire brigades.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The matter was referred to the Treasurer, who was asked to reply on behalf of the Government.

Wool (Question No. 192)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, 9 March 1977:

What quantity of wool has been purchased by the Australian Wool Corporation in each month since November 1975, and at what cost.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

Details of wool purchased by the Australian Wool Corporation at auction and tender sales under reserve price arrangements are not kept on a calendar month basis. However, data is maintained on a sale week basis and this has been aggregated to reflect as near as possible Australian Wool Corporation’s purchases in each month since November 1975. Details are as follows:

The above statistics do not take account of sales by the AWC which have been in excess of purchases in the period under review.

Export of Live Sheep (Question No. 193)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:

Will the continued high demand for export of live sheep to Middle East countries by Australia, and resultant increased pressure for frozen and chilled mutton and lambs, lead to increases in the price of store sheep as was claimed by Kenneth Graham, in an article entitled ‘Sheep on the Comeback Trail’, which appeared in the Bulletin dated 5 March 1977? If so, what action can the Minister take to minimise any increases in the domestic price of mutton and lamb.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

Exports of live sheep and refrigerated sheep meat to the Middle East have grown rapidly over the past few years. Exports of sheep meat have grown faster than exports of live sheep; 250 per cent compared with 85 per cent from 1 973-74 to 1975-76. Indications are that live sheep exports will stabilise and in time decline and that an increasing proportion of the trade to the Middle East will be in sheep meat.

The trade has become a very important outlet for sheep producers particularly in Western Australia and South Australia.

The growth in the Middle East trade has provided a welcome strengthening in prices producers receive for sheep.

But wool prices andother factors also have an important influence on the prices of sheep whether they be for slaughter, breeding or woolgrowing.

The size of the national flock declined sharply in the early 1970s principally because of low wool prices and drought conditions. There has been some recovery since then but drought conditions in 1976 in Southern Australia reduced lambings and provided a check to the growth of sheep numbers.

The situation now is that with generally strengthening wool demand, and strong demand for live sheep, mutton and lamb, particularly from the Middle East, but other markets as well, sheep are in short supply relative to the demand for all purposes. Sheep prices have risen sharply as a result. This inevitably means higher mutton and lamb prices on the Australian market.

Increased slaughter and distribution costs are also a very important cause of higher meat costs. These costs have increased much more rapidly than the rise in the Consumer Price Index over the last four years but this has been masked by lower returns to producers. The cost of farm inputs also has increased faster than the CPI.

The end result is that Australian consumers will have to pay much more for their meat in the future than they did five or six years ago. Otherwise, farmers simply will not be able to afford to continue to produce livestock for slaughter. This applies to all meats not just mutton and lamb.

It is not just the demands of the Middle East or any other market which will bring this about. The escalation of costs which has occurred in this country will be a far more important and pervasive cause. A continuing upward trend in meat prices in the future cannot be avoided unless inflation is brought under control.

Government Departments: Renting of Building Professional Suites’, Brisbane (Question No. 195)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

Does any Federal Government department or instrumentality rent or lease space in the building known as Professional Suites at 1 38 Albert Street, Brisbane. If so, (a) what departments are involved, (b) what are the relevant rental or leasing arrangements, (c) what is the annual cost of rental or leasing, (d) who was the builder of the building concerned, and (e) who owns the building.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Attorney-General’s Department, Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, Department of Social Security.
  2. Attorney-General’s Department, a three year lease, commenced 1 November 1974; Department of Employment and Industrial Relations- a monthly tenancy; Department of Social Security, a three year lease, commenced 1 November 1974.
  3. Attorney-General ‘s Department, $1,152.00; Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, $1,872.00; Department of Social Security, $5,248.00.
  4. N. A. Kratzmann & Sons Pty Ltd.
  5. A consortium of eighteen owners, on a strata-title basis, represented by the agent Ngaire Pty Ltd.

Australian Coastal Economic Zone (Question No. 196)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

Is the Federal Government giving consideration to declaring a 320 kilometre economic zone around the Australian coastline as was suggested by the Queensland Premier and quoted in the Brisbane Telegraph of 2 March 1977. If so (a) what are the details, and (b) has the Queensland Premier made a formal submission to the Government on this matter.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Australia has participated actively in the United Nations Law of the Sea Conferences. The Third Conference, charged with revision of the rules of international law governing the uses of the sea and the exploitation of its resources, is to commence its Sixth Session in New York on 23 May 1977. The Government hopes that the Conference will result in the conclusion of a comprehensive and widelyaccepted Law of the Sea Convention, which will include provision for a 200-mile economic zone. The Government does not want to pre-empt the outcome of the Conference by itself declaring a 200-mile economic zone, but if the Sixth Session of the Conference fails to make progress, the Government will reconsider its position. In the meantime this issue is being kept under close review.
  2. It is not normal practice to divulge the nature of correspondence which may or may not have passed between Commonwealth and State governments.

Uranium Mining (Question No. 198)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

How many people are likely to be employed directly in uranium mining and associated industries if all major Australian uranium mines were to be brought into production.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

Radiation Births (Question No. 199)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is the total number of deformities and ‘monster’ births in Japan that are related to the two atomic bomb explosions in 1945.
  2. Are such deformities and ‘monster’ births still occurring.
  3. For how long are such deformities and births likely to occur.
  4. What effect have these explosions had on the genetic structure of the people involved.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

As a preface to providing answers to the question asked by the honourable senator it is necessary to distinguish between two types of possible effects of exposure to ionising radiation which may result in abnormal children being born subsequent to the exposure.

On the one hand there are the developmental abnormalities which may occur in children born of mothers who were pregnant at the time of the radiation exposure. These effects are referred to as teratogenic effects of ionising radiation.

On the other hand there is the possibility that, if the reproductive germ cells of persons of either sex are exposed to ionising radiation, mutations may be induced in those cells. These mutations may be manifest in the children of the exposed persons when those children are conceived subsequent to the radiation exposure. Such effects, which are genetic or hereditary in origin, may range from mild and essentially unrecognisable to severely disabling disorders. The risk of the occurrence of serious hereditary ill health in generations subsequent to the first two after the exposure of either parent, has been assessed, on the basis of experimental data on animals and insects, to be about the same as the risk of the occurrence of like hereditary effects in those first two generations.

The information requested by the honourable senator is given in a Review of Thirty Years Study of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Survivors published in September 1975 as a Supplement to the Journal of Radiation Research. This publication reviews the results of the studies made by the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (a joint enterprise of the Japanese and United States Governments), on the Japanese populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who incurred radiation exposure consequent to the atomic bomb explosions over those cities in August 1945.

The Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission was dissolved in April 1975 to be replaced by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation which also operates as a joint enterprise of the Japanese and United States Governments to continue the surveillance of the Japanese atomic bomb survivors.

The answers to the specific questions raised by the honourable senator are as follows:

1 ) In so far as the question asked relates to genetic or hereditary effects on the Japanese population of the two cities, an authoritative answer is given in the Preface to the above mentioned scientific publication in the following terms: ‘A number of studies failed to demonstrate correlation of genetic abnormalities with A-bomb exposure, and these objective appraisals contributed not only to our overall knowledge, but to allaying of fears among those who were exposed to these bombs.

With respect to developmental abnormalities in children born of mothers who were pregnant and in the two Japanese cities at the time of the atomic bomb explosions, the qualitative findings of studies on the children are that, compared with children not exposed to ionising radiation in utero, there was an increased incidence of reduction of height, weight and head and chest circumference measurements which persisted to maturity and an increased incidence of mental retardation. The studies showed that the risk of these effects increased as the level of radiation dose increased and that the incidence was greater when the radiation exposure occurred in the early stages of the pregnancy

The following are typical results of the studies of these non-genetic abnormalities given in the scientific publication to which reference has been made.

About 13 per cent of a group of children irradiated in utero as a result of the atomic bomb explosions showed a mean reduction of head circumference at maturity of about 1 centimetre compared with an incidence of about 4 per cent of a like deformity in a control group of Japanese children in utero at the time of the explosions but not exposed to radiation doses. On the other hand about 3 per cent of a group of children irradiated in utero as a’ result of the atomic bomb explosions showed evidence of some mental retardation compared with an incidence of about 1 per cent in the control group.

and (3) As already indicated in answer to part 1 of the question, in some of the children born of mothers who were pregnant at the time of the atomic bomb explosions, effects of a developmental character occurred. These effects are not hereditary in origin and will not continue to occur.

On the basis of the studies carried out to-date there is no evidence of any effects on the genetic structure of the Japanese population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki exposed to the atomic bomb explosions.

Radiation Deaths (Question No. 200)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is the current death rate in the world due to the liberation of radon gas from radio-active wastes and material.
  2. Is this figure likely to increase with the increased enrichment of uranium. If so, by how much.
  3. 3 ) If no figures for the likely increase in the death rate are available, does this indicate that scientists and doctors have little or no idea about the dangers and the limits of dangers associated with nuclear power.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There is no widely accepted method for ascertaining, from available data, the current world death rate (if any) due to the liberation of radon gas from radio-active wastes and material. The precise relationship between the accumulated exposure to concentrations of radon released from uranium mining and milling and deaths due to lung cancer (the disease most likely to be associated with inhalation of radon gas) is uncertain. This is because there are no readily available data registering the quantities, nature and status of radio-active wastes upon which the concentration of released radon could be measured. Current estimates are, therefore, based primarily upon assumptions. From data published by the International Atomic Energy Agency it has been estimated that at the most, nine lung cancer deaths per year may be attributed to the release of radon.
  2. (See (1). From available scientific data produced by recognised authorities like the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Australian Radiation Laboratory, the concentration of radon in the atmosphere will be increased by uranium production, by about one ten-thousandth of the concentration of radon naturally occurring in the atmosphere, due to its natural release from the earth ‘s surface.
  3. It would not be correct to assume that scientists and doctors have little or no idea about the dangers associated with nuclear power, merely because there are no widely accepted figures relating to the possible increase in deaths which could be attributed to the release of radio-active wastes and materials. To the contrary a number of reports have been produced in recent years, including the 1972 Report to the UN General Assembly on the ‘Effects of Atomic Radiation’; the 1976 OECD Nuclear Energy Agency Report on ‘Estimated Population Exposure from Nuclear Power Production and Other Radiation Sources’; the 1973 Report of the United States Environmental Protection Agency on ‘Environmental Analysis of the Uranium Fuel Cycle’; and the United Kingdom Royal Commission on ‘Environmental Pollution on Nuclear Power and the Environment’; all of which give objective and comprehensive assessments of the environmental and health impact of the nuclear power industry.

Foreign Investment in Uranium Mining (Question No. 203)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In the light of recent statements by the uranium mining companies as to the great economic benefits Australia could achieve if uranium deposits were exploited, is it a fact that overseas ownership of Pancontinental amounts to at least 49 per cent and that there is substantial overseas ownership in other uranium ventures.
  2. How will this level of foreign ownership affect the distribution of after-tax profits.
  3. Will a fair percentage of these profits go overseas in the form of share dividends.
  4. Would uranium mining, under the present equity arrangements, be of as great a financial benefit to Australia as the mining companies claim.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister for National Resources had provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) to (4) As announced by my colleague the Treasurer in his statement of 1 April 1976 to the Parliament on foreign investment in Australia, a uranium project involving investment by foreign interests, not already in production, will only be allowed to proceed provided it has a minimum of 75 per cent Australian equity and is Australian controlled at the time production commences. In calculating the level of foreign ownership, regard will be had to foreign portfolio investment in participating companies. As indicated in the statement by the Treasurer and myself of 28 May 1976, individual portfolio share-holdings of less than 10 per cent in an Australian uranium company would be disregarded unless there were special circumstances that would need to be taken into consideration in a particular case.

Accordingly, it is necessary for companies proposing to develop uranium projects to demonstrate to the Government that their proposals meet the guidelines, as outlined above. To this end, foreign interests are required to submit proposals to the Foreign Investment Review Board which is responsible for advising the Government on all foreign investment matters.

As to the distribution of profits, I would point out that subject to meeting normal legal obligations, including the payment of taxation and royalties, it is a matter for individual companies to determine the rate of dividend to be paid to shareholders.

Uranium (Question No. 204)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 8 March 1 977:

Did the Fox Inquiry state that ‘the downward revision over the past two years in anticipated additions to nuclear capacity have led to reductions in estimated uranium requirements . . . and uranium reserves . . clearly exceed estimated uranium requirements by a considerable margin’. If so, will the Minister comment on the answer given to Senate Question No. 48 1 .

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The official estimate of Japan’s nuclear power capacity remains at 49 000 MW in 1985 as stated in the reply given to Question No. 481 on 4 June 1976. The Japanese nuclear power program is currently under review and unofficial estimates from industry sources suggest the revised target for 1985 may be much lower. The comments on Japanese supply and demand as given in reply to Question No. 481 remain unchanged.

Uranium (Question No. 205)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 8 March 1 977:

  1. Did the Fox Inquiry state that ‘the downward revisions over the past two years, in anticipated additions to nuclear capacity, have led to reductions in estimated uranium requirements’. If so, is the oversupply of uranium likely to depress the market price of U3O8 If so, will this make the mining of uranium less economic in Australia.
  2. Will such an oversupply of U30s lead to price cutting by producers in order to win contracts. If so, would such price reductions further erode the viability of uranium mining in Australia.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) If a world oversupply of uranium is allowed to develop, prices could be lower than may have otherwise been anticipated thereby possibly making the mining of uranium less profitable than may have otherwise been anticipated. However, if further development of the Australian uranium industry does take place, the Government has indicated in evidence presented to the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry on 8 April 1976 that it intends to ensure that there is orderly development of Australian uranium resources and that an oversupply situation, with consequential reduction in world prices to Australia’s disadvantage, is avoided.

Nuclear Energy (Question No. 210)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1) In the light of the recent Fox Inquiry finding that ‘if one accepts even the more conservative estimates of the development of peaceful nuclear energy programs in a large number of countries during the rest of this century, the costs of the application of safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency might increase to an extent where there would be opposition by member states to paying such a substantial bill’.
  2. Will such cost increases tend to make nuclear generated electricity dearer than expected.
  3. Will these cost increases serve to make coal generated electricity competitive or even cheaper than nuclear derived electricity.
  4. Could these cost increases result in member states refusing to be involved in the application of such nuclear safeguards.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. , (2) and (3) The effect of any increased safeguards costs will be small taken over all nuclear power programs. Also, improvements in safeguards techniques, grouping of facilities, the use of regional safeguards offices, and increasing managerial expertise may be expected to cause some reduction in unit safeguards costs, Other factors such as geographical location and availability of resources are far more significant determinants of the relative competitiveness of coal and nuclear generated electricity. In many areas, including Australia, coal generated electricity remains the cheaper of the two.
  2. The application of international safeguards in particular countries arises from their obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and/or as a condition of supply of nuclear equipment or material by supplying countries. As any cost increases will be small, it is unlikely that such countries’ willingness to be involved in safeguards will be affected. As regards other member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency, avoidance of the costs of safeguards would involve withdrawal from the IAEA which involves more than just safeguards aspects. This has not happened in the past and there is no evidence to suggest that it will happen in the future.

Barrier Reef Consultative Committee (Question No. 212)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) When did the Barrier Reef Consultative Committee, recently appointed by the Government, first meet.
  2. If the Committee has not met, when will it.
  3. How frequently will meetings be held.
  4. How much has been allocated for the operation of the Committee during this financial year.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Committee held its first meeting on 23 September 1976 and has since met on 24 November 1976 and 10 March 1977. It meets again on 29 March 1977.
  2. ) See (1) above.
  3. 3 ) Every 2 to 3 months.
  4. Administrative assistance required for the purpose of the Committee is provided by the staff of the Authority. An amount of $12,000 has been included in the estimates approved by me for the financial year 1976-77, to cover travel costs and sitting fees of the Committee. The Authority is required to provide such money as is necessary for the performance of the functions of the Committee.

Bus Operators: Concessions to Pensioners (Question No. 213)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does the Department of Social Security have information on which bus operators offer concessions to pensioners. If so, who are these operators in Queensland.
  2. ) Do any bus operators in Central Queensland offer concessions to pensioners, (a) If so, which operators, and (b) if not, is the Depanment able to make any approaches to these operators to ask them to consider offering concessions.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Department conducted a survey in July 1976 and the result showed that not all bus operators gave a concession to pensioners. Of those operators who had decided to offer a concession the criterion was the production of a Pensioner Health Benefit Card or Concession Card. Owners running an urban bus service could be eligible for subsidy from the Queensland Government.

The Department has now commenced a survey for 1 977 to provide information for compilation of a current list of bus operators giving concessions to pensioners.

The decision whether to offer concessions is entirely a matter for individual operators.

Cattle Marketing (Question No. 217)

Senator Gietzelt:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, calling on cattle producers to withhold stock from market, constitute Government policy.
  2. Would such a proposal seriously raise domestic meat prices and affect the fight against inflation.
  3. Would the threat to withhold stock constitute a strike by capital; if so, does this mean that the Government now supports strike action by labour and capital to get a higher price for their commodity.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) There is no doubt that beef producers are currently facing extreme difficulties arising from depressed markets and rapid rises in costs.

It is, of course, for the commercial judgment of individual producers as to when, or whether, to market their stock.

Northern Territory Apprentice Board (Question No. 222)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister indicate whether consideration is being given to transferring responsibility for the Northern Territory Apprentices Board to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
  2. If consideration is being given, will the Minister indicate when the transfer might be effected.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Consideration is being given to the transfer of responsibility for the Northern Territory Apprentices Board to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
  2. My colleague, the Minister for Education, recently indicated in reply to similar representations from the then Executive Member for Education and Law in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, that the proposed transfer of responsibility will take place at the earliest appropriate time.

Cyclone Tracy: Payments to Victims (Question No. 224)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Was the Director-General of Social Security reported as saying that payments to victims of Cyclone Tracy, made under the guidelines provided by Labor’s National Compensation Bil], are to cease.
  2. Will the Minister provide details of payments made, indicate the savings made by the cessation of these payments and the introduction of payments under other schemes.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. I ) The Director-General of the Department of Social Security announced on 2 March 1977 that the compensation payments made along the lines of the National Compensation Bill 1 974 to victims of the Darwin cyclone were to cease on 3 1 March 1 977. The announcement read as follows:

The Director-General of the Department of Social Security Mr L. J. Daniels, said today that recently the need had arisen to review personal compensation payments being made to 30 Cyclone Tracy victims.

Since 1975, payments have been made to these people, who were either injured or bereaved, along the lines provided by the National Compensation Bill 1974, which was before Parliament at the time. The Bill was not approved by Parliament and consequently the expected legislative authority for the continuation of the payments did not eventuate. It has therefore become necessary for the question of the continuation of these payments to be reviewed.

Until now the view had been taken, Mr Daniels said, that the recipients of compensation warranted special consideration because of individual problems resulting from the cyclone, and because of their need to be allowed a reasonable period to adjust to their new situation.

In the absence of specific legislation governing compensation payments, and having regard to the fact that similar payments have not been made to the victims of other natural disasters, it has been decided that the payments made in respect of the period of special difficulty that immediately followed the cyclone, and the period of adjustment that has subsequently occurred, are not to continue beyond 3 1 March 1977.

Widows and people who are unable to engage in full-time employment may be eligible for a pension or benefit under the Social Services Act. Should any of these people wish to test their eligibility for such assistance, Mr Daniels suggested they inquire at the nearest office of the Department of Social Security.

He pointed out that no claim for a pension or benefit could be paid before a claim was lodged, and that it would be in the interests of the people concerned to consult the Department at an early date. ‘

A copy of this announcement was forwarded to the honourable senator on 8 March 1977.

  1. 206 claims for compensation have been received since the cyclone and of these, 124 have been accepted and 79 rejected, and 3 are awaiting an initial determination. 30 claimants are currently receiving weekly benefits.

Payments of compensation commenced on 7 March 1975. A total amount of $442,888 had been paid up to 1 April 1977.

Some small savings will result from the termination of the compensation payments. It will not be possible to estimate the amount of these savings until such time as claims for pensions and benefits by the persons concerned have been lodged and determined.

Oil Tanker Globtik Venus (Question No. 225)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. Has the oil tanker Globtik Venus ever operated under charter in Australian waters.
  2. Have any of her sister ships operated on the Australian coast.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I am not aware that Globtik Venus or any of her sister ships have ever operated either under charter in Australian waters or on the Australian coast.

Mirage Aircraft (Question No. 227)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. How many flights have been undertaken by Australia’s Mirage aircraft, both within and outside of Australia, since 1 July 1975.
  2. 1 ) How many of these flights were in the nature of combat attack flights and how many were high altitude interceptor type flights.
  3. What is the estimated life of the existing Mirage aircraft if they continue to conduct the present flights on the basis of known technology.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. to (3) The answer to this question bears a security classification and cannot be made public without disclosing an operational capability of the RAAF.

National Apprenticeship Assistance Scheme (Question No. 233)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Can the Minister provide details of expenditure under the new National Apprenticeship Scheme for the years since its inception.
  2. Can the Minister provide expenditure details for each State.
  3. How many apprenticeships for each year received subsidies.
  4. What were the numbers of apprenticeship assistance under NAAS per State.
  5. What areas and centres in Queensland received NAAS and in which industries.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Expenditure for the National Apprenticeship Assistance Scheme (NAAS) during the period 1 July 1973 to 30 June 1976 has been $5 1 , 808,989. The table below shows the expenditure for each of the three elements of NAAS in the three financial years during which NAAS has been operative. It should be noted in relation to the last year that the data are not complete because employers have a 9 months time limit within which to submit their claims.

Replacement of Senators (Question No. 241)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

  1. Is the Attorney-General aware of constitutional difficulties in the State of Queensland in determining replacements for retired senators under section 15 of the Constitution.
  2. Will the Attorney-General agree that section 15 refers to a joint sitting of both Houses in appointing a replacement senator and as a consequence the Queensland State Parliament cannot meet this constitutional requirement.
  3. How many replacement senators have been appointed by the Queensland State Parliament since 1 949.
  4. Will the Attorney-General provide the names of the replacement senators and their period as senators.
  5. If the Attorney-General agrees that there is considerable doubt regarding the application of section 15 to the Queensland State Parliament for the purposes of appointing replacement senators, can the Attorney-General outline what measures will be taken to rectify this anomaly.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) It would not be appropriate in an answer to a question to give a legal opinion on the matters raised. However, 1 point out that the High Court’s decision in Clayton v. Heffron, (1960) 105 C.R.L. 214, at p. 248-9, that section 15 of the Constitution does not deprive a State legislature of the power to abolish one of its Houses, supports the view that a unicameral legislature can effectively comply with the requirements of section 15. I also mention that the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) Bill, if passed at the forthcoming referendum, would confirm that this is the position in relation to filling casual vacancies. This is because the opportunity has been taken, in proposing a redrafted section 15, expressly to provide for action by a unicameral legislature to fill a casual vacancy.

  2. and (4) I am informed that 4 replacement senators have been appointed and that their names and periods as senators are as follows:

    1. 1962-G. I. Whiteside replaced Senator M. W. Poulter. Term expired 29 November 1963. Defeated at election held on 30 November 1963.
    2. 1966-W. C. Heatley replaced Senator R. D. Sherrington. Term expired 25 November 1966. Elected 26 November 1966 to fill long casual vacancy to 30 June 1968. Defeated at election held on 25 November 1967.
    3. 1 97 1 - N. T. Bonner replaced Senator the Hon. Dame Annabelle Rankin. Term expired 1 December 1972. Elected 2 December 1972 to fill long casual vacancy to 30 June 1974. Term expired 1 1 April 1974 on dissolution of Parliament. Re-elected 18 May 1974. Term expired 11 November 1975 and re-elected 13 December 1975.
    4. 1975-A. P. Field replaced Senator B. R. Milliner. Term expired on 11 November 1975 on dissolution of Parliament. Defeated at election held on 13 December 1975.
  3. 5 ) See answer to Questions ( 1 ) and (2 ).

Timorese Refugees (Question No. 242)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

  1. What is the number of applications for visas by Timorese refugees now residing in Portugal.
  2. Has the Government made any decisions relating to visa applications from Timorese refugees.
  3. Have any applications been granted. If so, how many, and how many remain outstanding.
  4. If not, what are the reasons for such a prolonged delay.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1) In reply to Senate Question on Notice No. 1463 it was stated ‘applications for visas to Australia received from East Timor refugees in Portugal’ covered 1511 persons at 25 November 1976. This figure had been derived from information received from the Migration Officer in Madrid who was then responsible for immigration activities in Portugal, on the basis of actual applications received and from lists in Portuguese of what might be called “tentative” applications submitted from various sources.

Subsequently it became apparent that there was some duplication among actual applications and the lists provided. This is evident from official documents on Timorese refugees in Portugal compiled by the Commissariat for Evacuees of the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees which state that the number of Timorese who arrived in Portugal on evacuation flights totalled 1392 persons.

Moreover, many of the people on the list of ‘tentative applicants’ have not subsequently applied.

Formal applications held at 17 March 1977 from Timorese evacuees in Portugal covered 564 persons.

  1. Timorese evacuees may be approved for admission if they are:

    1. nominated immediate family members of Australian residents, i.e., spouses, dependent children, parents and fiance(e)s,
    2. applicants able to meet the normal personal and occupational criteria.

Nominated non-dependent sons or daughters and brothers or sisters of Australian residents or applicants where special circumstances are evident will be exempted from the normal occupational criteria provided they are able otherwise to meet the remaining migrant requirements.

The normal health and character requirements must be met and visas will be granted only to persons intending permanent settlement in Australia.

The above relaxed entry criteria apply only to persons already in Portugal.

  1. and (4) The position as at 17 March 1977 was as follows:

Visas issued: 47 persons

Approved and awaiting visa issue: 12 persons

Awaiting determination: 171 persons

Awaiting interview: 40 persons

Deferred, awaiting re-interview confirmation of sponsorship, documentation, etc: 294 persons

Unfortunately a significant number of the evacuees have malaria and many of them wish to travel to Darwin which is an anophelene-infested region. There are other serious medical problems among some of the evacuees.

There is thus a high incidence of medical deferrals among the evacuees while medical treatment, recommended by the Australian Medical Director, is completed. This, together with problems in assessing occupational qualifications and experience, has delayed processing but as applicants satisfy the migrant requirements they are granted visas.

Small Business Bureau (Question No. 244)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Can the Minister provide details of the operation and effectiveness of the Small Business Bureau.
  2. How many businesses in each State have been assisted.
  3. What have been the major forms of assistance provided.
  4. Has the Government any plans for increasing the effectiveness of the Small Business Bureau.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In formulating small business policy the Government recognised that both the Commonwealth and the State Governments have a responsibility towards small enterprise.

Soon after taking office and following discussions between myself and State Ministers responsible for Industrial Development on a program aimed at assisting small firms through greater co-operation and rationalisation of services, it was agreed that proposals for a joint Commonwealth /State program would be referred to respective Governments for consideration.

The elements of the proposed program covered counselling, management training, information services, research and improved availability of finance.

It was intended that the States would concentrate on those activities which involve direct dealings with small business owner/managers, while the Commonwealth would be concerned with providing support facilities to the States and would play a co-ordinating role where this was agreed with the States to be appropriate.

Most State Governments have now taken initiatives to introduce specialised agencies or staff to assist small enterprises in their States.

In line with this approach the Commonwealth Counselling Services operated on a trial basis in two States have been withdrawn and the National Small Business Bureau has been replaced by the Finance and Small Business Branch of the Tertiary Industry Division of the Department.

The development of this joint Commonwealth/State program of assistance to small business will result in improved effectiveness by eliminating waste and duplication and clarifying responsibilities.

  1. There are no comparable statistics of the number of small businesses being assisted in each State. However, it is indicative of the interest in New South Wales that the State Agency counsels up to 50 people a week on how to set up in business or how to keep it going.
  2. The major forms of assistance have been counselling and guidance services.
  3. The program outlined under ( 1 ) will result in more efficient and effective assistance to small business.

Uranium Marketing Board (Question No. 245)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Can the Minister provide further details on discussions being held between the Department of National Resources and industry representatives on the proposed Uranium Marketing Board.
  2. What decisions have been made since 10 December 1 976 in relation to a Uranium Marketing Board.
  3. Are discussions continuing on the basis of a go-ahead on new uranium developments.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. In the answer provided to Senate Question No. 1459 on 10 December 1976 my colleague, the Acting Minister for National Resources, indicated that exploratory discussions had been held with potential uranium producers on future uranium marketing arrangements. These discussions took place prior to 8 April 1976.
  2. None.
  3. No; see(l)above.

Apprentices (Question No. 249)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. What percentage of apprenticeships, according to industry categories, will not be eligible to receive assistance under the curent guidelines of the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training Scheme.
  2. What are the main apprenticeships which will be now ineligible.
  3. Is the Government taking measures to rectify the situation where some apprenticeships will no longer be entitled to receive a subsidy due to a very low or no technical training component in the period of apprenticeship.
  4. Will companies that require apprentices to do night training at technical institutions be eligible for the subsidy.
  5. What is the average number of days spent in technical training by apprentices.
  6. What is the projected increase in the number of apprenticeships due to Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training over the next three financial years.
  7. If there is an increase expected on what basis was it calculated.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training (CRAFT) applies to all apprenticeships proclaimed as apprenticeable trades by the appropriate State apprenticeship authorities or under Federal awards and determinaitons as at 15.1.77. Any trades subsequently proclaimed as apprenticeable may also be covered under CRAFT subject to my approval.

However, in circumstances where employers do not release apprentices to attend or study trade courses of technical education, no rebate is payable. It is estimated that only some 3 per cent of apprentices are not released to attend such courses.

  1. As indicated in (1) above, all apprenticeships proclaimed as at the date of introduction of CRAFT are eligible. In some States and for some trades technical education courses are not available in all locations, particularly in country areas. In other instances, where release of apprentices for technical training is not compulsory, some employers choose not to release their apprentices.
  2. The provision of technical training for apprentices is the responsibility of the State and Territory technical education and apprenticeship authorities. These authorities have indicated their readiness to discuss with employers the provision of technical education courses on a day release, block release, or correspondence basis for those apprenticeships for which suitable courses are not currently available.

In circumstances where the release of an apprentice to attend technical training necessitates travel time of half a day or more, the travel time involved is regarded as part of the total release period for the purposes of assessing the rebate to an employer.

  1. No. The rebate relates to the wage costs incurred by an employer releasing an apprentice for training during normal working hours. It is, in any event, contrary to the apprentice training policies of all States to expect apprentices to undertake night schooling.
  2. An average of 35 to 40 days per annum are spent by apprentices attending prescribed technical training, though in some trades for example, butchery, the period may be substantially less.
  3. It is estimated that CRAFT will contribute to an increase of 1000 in the national apprenticeship intake during the current financial year. Further increase of 4000 apprenticeships per annum are aimed for during subsequent financial years to bring the national intake to 48 000 by 1979-80- an increase of some 12 000 apprenticeship places on current levels.
  4. These estimates are, of course, subject to variations in the general economic situation. They were based on assessments prepared following discussions with the various State apprenticeship authorities who were also involved in the development of CRAFT.

Thailand: Australian Military Aid and Training (Question No. 252)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is the number of Thailand Army officers who have received training in Australia for each year since 1 970.
  2. 2 ) Under what arrangements were they trained.
  3. 3 ) How many are currently in training.
  4. What is the level of military aid to Thailand for each financial year since 1949.
  5. What is the amount of military aid for 1976-77.
  6. Have any discussions with the Government of Thailand been held relating to future military aid and training; if so, that are the details of such discussions.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The table below shows the number of Thai Army personnel who commenced training in Australia in each year since 1970.
  2. Students attending the Royal Military College, Duntroon, are trained at the expense of the Thai Government. Other Thai Army personnel have been trained since financial year 1972-73 under the Defence Co-operation Program; before that they were trained under the SEATO Aid Program administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs.
  3. Five.
  4. The level of military aid to Thailand since the provision of assistance has been a Defence responsibility is as follows:

Information on expenditure prior to 1972-73 under the SEATO Aid Program is not held by the Department of Defence.

  1. Estimated expenditure for 1976-77 is $30,000-all on training in Australia.
  2. The Defence Attache at the Australian Embassy in Bangkok has frequent discussions with the Thai authorities to determine and administer the provision of military training assistance. There have been no recent Government to Government discussions on the matter.

James Cook University: Medical School (Question No. 254)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

With respect to the strong criticism of the Federal Government ‘s deferral of funding for the proposed James Cook Medical School in Townsville by the Queensland Premier, quoted in the Townsville Daily Bulletin dated 4 March 1 977, (a) did the Prime Minister give approval for his reply to be released to the media, and (b) what is the full text of (i) the Premier’s letter and (ii) the Prime Minister’s reply, referred to in the Townsville Daily Bulletin article concerned.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

My attention has been drawn to the article in the Townsville Daily Bulletin. However, details of correspondence between a Premier and the Prime Minister are normally regarded as confidential and therefore I do not intend to release the texts of the letters.

Commonwealth Employment Service Agencies (Question No. 264)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

With relation to the Minister’s reply to Question No. 1 476, concerning agencies of the Commonwealth Employment Service, how should an agency apply for a higher grading.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

Agents of the Commonwealth Employment Service do not have to apply for a higher grading. The performance of all Agents is assessed each quarter and where the work performance of an individual Agent has risen above or fallen below his current grading over two consecutive quarters, the grading of the Agent is adjusted with a consequent increase or decrease in his monthly remuneration.

Purchase of Land for Aboriginals: Release of Correspondence (Question No. 266)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

Is the text of the letter from the Premier of Queensland to the Prime Minister relating to Aboriginal land rights in Queensland quoted in the Catholic Leader dated 27 February 1977, the full text of the correspondence concerned. If so, (a) did the Premier of Queensland seek the Prime Minister’s approval before releasing the text of his letter to the media, and (b) what is the full text of the Prime Minister’s reply to the Premier on this matter.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

My attention has been drawn to the item in the Catholic Leader. As correspondence between a Premier and the Prime Minister is normally of a confidential nature I do not intend to make public any reply to the Premier.

Road Works: Queensland (Question No. 270)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What funds were provided by the Commonwealth to the Queensland Government for road works in (a) 1976, and (b) 1976-77.
  2. What proportion of the 1975-76 Commonwealth allocation for road works in Queensland remained unspent at 30 June 1976.
  3. What proportion of the 1976-77 Commonwealth allocation for road works in Queensland has remained unspent at the end of each month since 30 June 1976.
  4. Can the Minister provide details of the amount of revenue derived by the Commonwealth from fuel tax in Queensland in 1975-76.
  5. Can the Minister estimate the amount of revenue that will be derived by the Commonwealth from fuel tax in Queensland in (a) 1976-77, and (b) 1977-78.
  6. What funding did the Queensland Government seek for road works in 1977-78.
  7. What funds will the Commonwealth provide for road works in Queensland in 1977-78.
  8. What is the reason for the difference, if any, in the amounts stated in answer to (6) and (7).
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Commonwealth Government grants to Queensland under the current roads legislation provides for $88.2m in 1975-76 and $9l.5m in 1976-77.
  2. Nil.
  3. There is no provision in the Roads Grants Act requiring the States to provide such information.
  4. and (5) I have referred the questions to my colleague, the Treasurer, for reply as they fall within his area of responsibility.
  5. The Queensland Government has asked that the Bureau of Roads Recommended Roads Program be implemented as a minimum level of Commonwealth funding, i.e., $ 1 1 5m at current prices.
  6. I announced at the meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council on 25 February 1977 that the Commonwealth proposed allocation of road funds to Queensland for 1977-78 would be $ 100m.
  7. The allocations to the States for roads in 1977-78 as proposed by the Commonwealth were made against the background of the Bureau of Roads’ Report on Roads in Australia 1975. The report is advisory only and does not commit the Government to a specific course of action. The Commonwealth proposed allocation to the States for roads in 1977-78 is $475m; $38.3m over the level of funds provided in 1977-78. This decision by the Government reflects the importance which the Government places on continued assistance for roads, particularly in the light of our objective of bringing inflation under control and holding the growth in budget outlays this year within zero real growth and reducing the budget deficit.

Kangaroo Island: Soldier Settlers Scheme (Question No. 273)

Senator Cavanagh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 15 March 1976:

  1. 1 ) What is the cost to the Australian Government of the soldiers settlers scheme on Kangaroo Island.
  2. What is the total debt owed by the Settlers to the Australian Government.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. $11,039,149.
  2. $2,597,244 as at 31 December 1976.

Proposed Japanese Tourist Project, Yeppoon (Question No. 277)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

Did Messrs Morris, fletcher and Cross, Solicitors of Brisbane, write to the Foreign Investment Advisory Committee on 28 June 1976, on behalf of Iwasaki Sangyo Co. (Aust) Pty Ltd, relating to the proposed borrowing by Iwasaki Sangyo Co. (Aust.) Pty Ltd of Japan of A$290,000 in order to finance a proposed tourist development project at Yeppoon in Queensland. If so, (a) what are the details of the request by Iwasaki Sangyo Co. (Aust.) Pty Ltd, (b) what stage has the submission to the Foreign Investment Advisory Committee reached, (c) has the Australian Government sought any informaton relating to the submission from the Queensland Government, (d) has the Australian Government sought any information relating to the submission from any other organisations or individuals and (e ), in view of the reported serious criticisms of the Iwasaki proposals by organisations such as the Queensland Conservation Council, the Capricorn Coast Protection Council, the Capricorn Master Fishermans Association, the Capricorn Conservation Council, and returned soldiers’ organisations, will the Treasurer ensure that a detailed investigation of the Iwasaki proposals, including discussion with relevant interest groups and Government instrumentalities, will be undertaken before any further approval is given by the Foreign Investment Advisory Committee to the submissions on behalf of the Company.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

I am not in a position to state whether Messrs Morris, Fletcher and Cross of Brisbane have written to the Foreign Investment Review Board (which replaced the Foreign Investment Advisory Committee in April 1976) about any proposal for any Japanese interest to invest in Australia.

The details, or the stage of processing, of any foreign investment proposal before the Government are confidential to the parties to the proposal. The only exception arises where on order is made under the Foreign Takeovers Act 1975 and published in the Gazette. The parties to a proposal are, naturally, at liberty to make public any information relating to their proposal.

All foreign investment proposals subject to examination under the Government’s stated policy are considered on their own merits to determine whether they are contrary to the national interest. The criteria for making this examination specifically include environmental aspects.

Before a decision on a foreign investment proposal is taken by the Government, due process must take place; all the relevant issues raised by the proposal are considered carefully, and the views of all appropriate Government Departments and authorities are obtained. Any written submissions which had been received from third parties would also be taken into account at that time.

Where it is considered appropriate, Federal Government approval of a foreign investment proposal may be conditional upon.subsequent relevant approvals being obtained from other authorities and instrumentalities.

Dripstone High School (Question No. 282)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

Will tenders be called in March for the construction of the Dripstone High School and will construction commence in July, as previously indicated.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

It is expected that tenders for the construction of Dripstone High School will be called in April 1977 and a contract let in July 1977.

To enable the school to be completed towards the end of 1979 in readiness for the beginning of the 19S0 school year it has been decided to defer the theatre from the main contract. The contract for the theatre will be let at a later date.

Electricity Supply Division, Northern Territory: Radio Communications System (Question No. 285)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Was a petition calling for the immediate supply of a two-way radio system to safeguard the lives of those persons employed in the Repairs and Maintenance Section of the electricity supply undertaking presented to the Minister on 20 January 1977 while he was in Darwin.
  2. When will the petition be presented in the House of Representatives as was promised by the Minister.
  3. What plans does the Government have to instal this equipment which is standard issue in State electricity undertakings.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The petition was presented in the House of Representatives on 22 February 1977 (see Hansard, pages 255 and 256 dated 22 February 1977).
  3. My Department has taken action to ensure that sufficient funds are provided for the installation of an acceptable radio communications system for the Electricity Supply Division. Subject to tenders, installation will commence immediately after agreement has been reached on the type of system to be introduced.

Unemployment Benefit: School Leavers (Question No. 292)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

  1. How many school leavers in the months of (a) November 1976, (b) December 1976, and (c) January 1977 (i) applied for unemployment benefit; (ii) were refused unemployment benefit; (iii) appealed against their rejection for unemployment benefit; and (iv) were granted benefit on appeal.
  2. How many school leavers (a) applied for special benefit; (b) were refused special benefit; (c) appealed against their rejection for special benefit; and (a) were granted benefit on appeal.
  3. What proportion of school leavers granted (a) unemployment benefit, and (b) special benefit, were mature age students.
  4. What estimate does the Government have of the money saved by not paying these benefits to school leavers.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The information in the form requested is not available. However, during the period 27 November 1976 to the commencement of the 1977 school year in each State 34 455 school leavers applied for unemployment benefit. A further 22 215 school leavers applied for unemployment benefit up to 1 1 March 1977 making the total claims lodged 56 670. Of these, 32 368 have been granted since the official resumption of the school year. The remainder of claims have either been withdrawn, as a result of the applicant returning to full-time education or finding employment, have been rejected or have been re-submitted by appeal. Of the 114 appeals lodged by school leavers to the end of February, 20 were upheld, 13 dismissed or withdrawn and 81 undetermined at 28 February.

  2. (a) Between 27 November 1976 and 28 January 1977 a total of 444 school leavers applied for special benefit. The number of school leavers who applied ibr special benefit prior to 27 November 1 976 is not available.

    1. Of the applications specified in (a) above 322 were rejected.
    2. and (d) Twelve appeals were received from school leavers refused special benefit during the months of November 1976, December 1976 and January 1977. Of these, 5 appeals where dismissed or withdrawn and 7 were undetermined as at the end of February 1977.
  3. and (4) The information is not available.

Unemployment Benefit and Special Benefit: Farmers (Question No. 294)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In the following electorates (a) New South WalesCalare, Cowper, Darling, Eden-Monaro, Farrer, Gwydir, Hume, Lyne, Macarthur, Macquarie, New England, Richmond, Riverina; (b) Victoria- Ballaarat, Bendigo, Corangamite, Gippsland, Indi, Murray, McMillan, Wannon, Wimmera; (c) Queensland- Capricornia, Darling Downs, Dawson, Fisher, Herbert, Kennedy, Leichhardt, Maranoa, Mcpherson, Wide Bay; (d) South Australia-Angas, Grey, Wakefield; (e) Western Australia- Canning, Kalgoorlie,

Moore; (f) and Tasmania- Bass, Braddon, Franklin, Wilmot: For the previous six months, how many farmers applied for (i) unemployment benefit, and (ii) special benefit.

  1. How many applications were granted in each category.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The required information is not available on the basis of electorates. The following table shows, for Social Security regions, the number of farmers who applied for and were granted unemployment benefit during the period 9 July 1976 to 24 December 1976. Similar information is not available in relation to special benefit but it might be noted that this benefit is not the appropriate form of assistance for unemployed farmers who are able and willing to accept fullrime employment away from their farms.

Polish Ex-servicemen: Repatriation Rights (Question No. 295)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many Polish ex-servicemen who are Australian citizens are estimated to be eligible for pensions and treatment through the Department of Veterans ‘ Affairs if they are given the same status as their Australian counterparts.
  2. What is the estimated cost of giving Polish exservicemen the same status.
  3. How many ex-servicemen from other Allied countries who are now Australian citizens have no repatriation rights in either their own country or Australia.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) It is estimated that there are about 3800 Polish veterans in Australia. Although many of these veterans would have served in Polish units under British command, my Department has no record of their age or experience in

the Polish Forces, particularly as to their disabilities or whether they were prisoners-of-war. This type of information would be necessary to make even a preliminary estimate, either of the number of Polish veterans who would be eligible to receive treatment and pensions if they were granted the same status as Australian veterans, or of the cost of such treatment and pensions.

  1. Similarly, I am also unable to estimate the number of veterans from other allied countries who are resident in Australia and who do not have repatriation rights in either their own country or Australia.

Aboriginal Land Rights: Complementary Legislation (Question No. 299)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 5 March 1977:

Did the Northern Land Council send a telegram to the Prime Minister dated 4 March 1977, criticising the attitude of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to Aboriginal land rights. If so, what action does the Prime Minister intend taking on this matter.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

Correspondence of the type referred to by the honourable senator is normally of a confidential nature and therefore would not generally be made publicly available.

Commonwealth Employment Service (Question No. 300)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 1 5 March 1977:

What assistance does the Commonwealth Employment Service provide at present to meet the social problems, as opposed to financial and job-finding problems, experienced by unemployed people registered for employment with the Service.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The responsibility of the Commonwealth Employment Service in regard to applicants registering with it is to assist them to overcome their employment problems. The CES recognises, however, that the goal of suitable employment for some clients can only result from their first overcoming other problems. Employment officers may be able to assist such persons with counselling; in other instances more specialised assistance is needed either from within the Department (e.g. departmental psychologists or outside it.)

Young unemployed persons are being provided the opportunity of particular help within the context of employment-oriented supportive programs sponsored by community organisations and committees with assistance from the Government under the Community Youth Support Scheme. CES officers are available to advise or participate in committees oversighting the development and provision of these programs.

Rural Health in Australia (Question No. 302)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

What action, if any, has the Government taken to implement the recommendations of the Report by the Hospitals and Health Services Commission, entitled Rural Health in Australia.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The report contains a number of proposals for improving the health services of rural people. The Commission has referred it to the Department of Health to investigate ways in which these proposals might be implemented as the economic situation allows.

East Timor: Humanitarian Assistance (Question No. 307)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 16 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What sum has been paid directly or indirectly by the Australian Government to the Indonesian Red Cross for the benefit of refugees and other persons in East Timor, or any other purposes?
  2. Has the Government any proof that any of this sum or any materials purchased with it, have been applied to the needs of refugees or to the needs of the indigenous people of East Timor; if so, what moneys and or materials; if not, will the Australian Government make urgent inquiries through its representative in Jakarta, or other responsible sources, to ascertain the uses made of such moneys?
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government has presented two sums to the Indonesian Red Cross for humanitarian relief in East Timor, $83,000 in October 1976, the balance of the Government’s contribution of $250,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross, and $250,000 in December 1976.
  2. ) The Government has been advised by the IRC that the Australian contribution was being spent on medical and relief supplies, the purchase of ambulances for hospitals at Dili and Bacau, the improvement of hospital facilities at twelve smaller centres and the administrative costs of distributing these items and running the relief program covered by our aid.

River Murray Working Party (Question No. 310)

Senator Jessop:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What positive action has resulted from recommendations in the Report of the River Murray Working Party to the Steering Committee of Ministers under 9.1 (i) (a) (b), (ii) (a) (b) (c) (d), (iii) and (iv).
  2. Is detailed drafting of necessary amendments under 9.2 of the Report nearing completion.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Responsibility for construction of the salinity mitigation works recommended under 9.1 (i) (a) (b) of the Report of the River Murray Working Party, rests entirely with the respective State Governments. However, 1 understand that Stage 1 of the works referred to in 9.1 (i) (a) has now been completed and is functional. With respect to 9.1 (i) (b) which relates to more complex problems in the Mildura-Merbein area, I understand that the Governments of New South Wales and Victoria are giving consideration to the early implementation of the recommendation. Proposals for works on the Victorian side of the river are currently subject of a public inquiry by the Victorian Parliamentary Public Works Committee. With respect to the recommendations under 9. 1 (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Report, I refer the honourable senator to the statement made by the Hon. P. J. Nixon when tabling the Report on my behalf (Hansard, 2 1 October 1976, page 2091). Pending completion of the necessary legislative action relating to a new Agreement, the River Murray Commission is now operating on an interim basis within its proposed expanded functions with respect to water quality matters. I am also advised that the Commission is now proceeding with the establishment of committees as proposed and agreement has been reached on appropriate terms of reference.
  2. No. It has been recognised that the detailed drafting of necessary amendments referred to under 9.2 of the Report will take some time to complete and the four Governments have agreed to the interim arrangements referred to above. The River Murray Commission has established a special working group on amendment requirements; it has already met once.

East Timor: Humanitarian Assistance (Question No. 312)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did the Government indicate that some $250,000 of medical supplies were to be made available to Indonesian authorities, to be used in Timor; if so, have these supplies been delivered to Timor?
  2. If the medical supplies were delivered to Timor, have the Indonesian authorities used these supplies for the benefit of the Timorese people?
  3. 3 ) Where and when were these supplies used?
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) In December 1976 the Government gave $250,000 to the Indonesian Red Cross for humanitarian relief and assistance to the people of East Timor. (This was in addition to an earlier contribution of $83,000, the balance of the Government’s contribution of $250,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross, made in October.) The Government did not provide medical supplies direct to the Indonesian Red Cross. The IRC have indicated that the money was being spent on the purchase of ambulances for hospitals in Dili and Bacau, the improvement of hospital facilities at twelve smaller centres and the provision of medicines. According to the IRC over 100 000 people live in the areas where the money was to be spent.

Immigration Amnesty (Question No. 313)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 1 7 March, 1 977:

  1. Did the Australian Government, more than a year ago, indicate that there was to be a period of amnesty for illegal immigrants in Australia to allow them to apply for permanent Australian citizenship. If so, how many people came forward during the amnesty.
  2. Of the applications received, what are the figures for the different nationalities.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions-

  1. 1 ) An announcement was made on 26 January 1976, that applications for resident status (not citizenship) would be sympathetically considered with respect to those people who arrived in Australia as visitors prior to 31 December 1975, and who had overstayed their permits. An undertaking was also given to examine applications from other categories of prohibited immigrants who arrived prior to 31 December 1975. The invitation closed on 30 April 1 976. Eight thousand six hundred and fourteen people came forward.
  2. The following table shows the citizenship and sex of the persons who applied.

Commonwealth Cash and Conversion Loan (Question No. 315)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does the latest Commonwealth Cash and Conversion Loan (Loan Number 237) at the short end offer an interest rate of 9.8 per cent per annum, whereas the previous loan (Number 236) offered only 8.5 per cent per annum at the short end.
  2. Why did the Government choose to follow the market in setting the increased interest rate for Loan No. 237 rather than lead the market, and thus encourage a general lowering of interest rates, by maintaining the interest rate at the 8.5 per cent level.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The shortest-dated security in Commonwealth Cash and Conversion Loan, Number 237, which opened on 10 February 1977, was issued with a 9.8 per cent coupon at 99.90 per cent for one year and nine months to yield approximately 9.85 per cent if held to maturity. The shortest-dated security offered in Loan Number 236, which opened on 14 October 1976, was issued with a coupon of 8.5 per cent at part for one year and ten months.
  2. It was judged necessary to offer yields on the securities issued in the February loan which were consistent with the existing market yield pattern in order to maintain the relative attractiveness of Government securities and secure a satisfactory loan result. My statement to the House on 15 February 1 977 is relevant.

Unemployment Benefits (Question No. 320)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 16 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many (a) males and (b) females were registered as unemployed with the Commonwealth Employment Service in Queensland as at 25 February 1977.
  2. How many (a) males and (b) females of the number listed in ( 1 ) were in receipt of unemployment benefit as at 25 February 1977.
  3. Of the remainder not listed in (2), how many (i) had been refused unemployment benefit, (ii) had not applied for unemployment benefit, (iii) had been denied unemployment benefit, because they had left their previous employment of their own accord, and were waiting out the necessary sixweek interim period before reapplying, and (iv) what are the details of any persons not covered by parts (i), (ii), and (iii).
  4. Will the Minister provide a more detailed breakdown of the reasons for refusal of unemployment benefit for those persons mentioned in (3) (i).
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A total of 36 674 males and 1 8 023 females were registered as unemployed with the Commonwealth Employment Service in Queensland on 25 February 1977.
  2. The Department of Social Security has advised that 26 485 males and 10 537 females were in receipt of unemployment benefit in Queensland on 25 February 1 977.

  3. The Department of Social Security has advised as follows:

    1. and (ii) The information requested is not available.
    1. The information requested is not available in respect of 25 February 1977. However, at 25 March 1977 there were 702 persons waiting out a 6-week interim period before payment of benefit.
    2. The information requested is not available.
  4. The Department of Social Security has advised that the information requested is not available.

Toy Cigarettes (Question No. 328)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 6 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister become aware of an article in the New Scientist of 4 November 1976 drawing attention to the sale in Great Britain of children’s toy cigarettes containing a powder emitted as a cloud of dust when the cigarettes are blown.
  2. ) Has it been shown on chemical analysis that they may contain an asbestos compound.
  3. As the cigarettes are manufactured in Taiwan, can the Minister give an assurance that no similar toy cigarettes are available for sale in Australia, and that none will be allowed in while any doubts as to their safety exist.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. Yes
  2. I am advised that an analysis of the toy cigarettes was conducted by a British Authority and that an asbestos content was not substantiated.
  3. The Department of Business and Consumer Affairs has conducted some investigations on whether these toy cigarettes are presently available for sale in Australia. These investigations indicate that such goods are not on sale at the present time. The Department has contacted the only known Australian importer of the cigarettes who has offered to obtain samples for analysis before further importations of these toy cigarettes are made. The Department intends to have such an analysis conducted.

Indian Ocean: Visits by Russian Naval Vessels (Question No. 344)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What classes of ships of the Russian Navy visited the Indian Ocean during 1976.
  2. How many ship days did these vessels spend in the Indian Ocean.
  3. What facilities in the area did ships of the Russian Navy have access to.
  4. What are the number of port visits made by ships of the Russian Navy to countries surrounding the Indian Ocean.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The following classes of Soviet naval vessels visited the Indian Ocean during 1976, for the periods shown:
  2. Soviet naval vessels spent a total of 7243 ship days in the Indian Ocean during 1976.
  3. There have been no changes to the information contained in the answer to Parliamentary Question No. 43 of 24 February 1976 (House of Representatives Hansard of 29 April 1976, page 1835).
  4. Soviet naval vessels made a total of 170 visits to pons in Indian Ocean countries during 1976. Countries visited included Ethiopia, French Territory of Afars and Issas, India, Iran, Iraq, Mauritius, Pakistan, People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, Somalia, Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates, Yemen Arab Republic.

Income Equalisation Deposit Scheme (Question No. 347)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What was the total of sums deposited under the Income Equalisation Deposit Scheme to 28 February 1 977.

  2. How many depositors were in each of the following categories of deposit:

    1. $0-$9,999,
    2. $ 10,000-$ 14,999,
    3. $ 15,000-$ 19,999,
    4. $20,000-$29,999,
    5. $30,000-$39,000,
    6. $40,000-$49,999,
    7. $50,000-$74,999and
    8. $75,000 and over.
  3. ) Is it possible to establish the nature of the enterprise of each depositor; if so, how many depositors are engaged principally in (a) sheep and wheat growing, (b) wheat and other grains, (c) wheat, sheep and cattle, (d) beef cattle, (e) dairying and (f) other agricultural enterprises.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The total amount deposited under the Income Equalisation Deposit Scheme to 28 February 1977 was $33.0m including drought bond conversions amounting to $ 1 .6m.
  2. The size distribution of deposits made to 28 February 1977 was as follows:
  1. Provision is made on deposit application forms for depositors to state their occupation. It has been found, however, that in most cases occupation has been stated by depositors only in general terms, e.g. primary producer, farmer, farmer/grazier. It is not possible therefore to obtain from deposit application forms the information sought in the question.

Tobacco (Question No. 350)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is the total amount collected by way of levy from tobacco growers and manufacturers under the Tobacco Charge Act for the year 1 975-76.
  2. 2 ) What was the total amount contributed to the Tobacco Industry Trust Account by the Australian Government.
  3. What research projects were funded from the account and which Australian and State departments, or instrumentalities, are carrying out tobacco research projects and what is the amount contributed so far from the Trust Funds to each specific project.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. $416,501.
  2. 5429,862.
  3. During 1975-76 tobacco research funded from the Tobacco Industry Trust Account was carried out by the New South Wales Department of Agriculture, Victorian Department of Agriculture, Queensland Department of Primary Industries and CSIRO. Some tobacco extension work in the three States also was funded from the Account. New South Wales and CSIRO have since ceased tobacco research work.

Allocations from the Account to the three Departments for research and extension and to CSIRO for research in 1975-76 were:

The State Departments met a substantial part of the cost of tobacco research, paying part of the salaries and associated cost of some research, support and administrative personnel from State funds.

For this reason, and because of the long term nature of some tobacco research, complex inter-relationships between some research activities such as plant breeding, disease and insect pest control, cultural methods, harvesting procedures and production cost containment it has not been the practice to allocate funds on a project basis.

Parish of Noosa: Acquisition of Land by Commonwealth (Question No. 358)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

Has the Acting Crown Solicitor of Queensland taken out a writ in the Queensland registry of the High Court, naming the Commonwealth of Australia, Aberdare Holdings Pty Ltd and John Charles Bennett, as defendants, and seeking a declaration that the purported acquisition by the Commonwealth of certain lands in the Parish of Noosa is unauthorised and void. If so, will the Commonwealth be defending the writ.

Senator Colston:

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The State of Queensland has taken out a writ in the Queensland Registry of the High Court of Australia naming the Commonwealth of Australia, Aberdare Holdings Pty Limited and John Charles Bennett as defendants. Queensland is seeking a declaration that the purported acquisition by the Commonwealth of certain lands in the Parish of Noosa was not authorised by the Lands Acquisition Act and is void. The Statement of Claim has recently been delivered and is being considered by the Commonwealth’s legal advisers.

Natural Disaster Assistance (Question No. 363)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

Has the Queensland Government approached the Federal Government for specific financial assistance to meet the cost of repairing damaged roads and bridges resulting from recent Hooding in north Queensland. If so, (a) what are the details, and (b) when is it expected that the Federal Government will reply to Queensland ‘s request.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The Commonwealth has already agreed to a request by the Queensland Government that it support, under the natural disaster assistance arrangements, expenditures by the State on certain relief and restoration measures necessitated by the recent flooding in northern coastal areas of the State.

Among the measures attracting Commonwealth support in this case is assistance towards the cost of restoration of flood damaged public assets, including roads and bridges.

Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor (Question No. 365)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

Does the Australian Atomic Energy Commission plan to prepare an evironmental impact statement under the provisions of the Environment Protections (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, relating to its intention to build a new reactor at Lucas Heights. If so, what are the details. If not, why not.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The provisions of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act would apply to any proposal by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to build a new reactor at Lucas Heights. I am advised by my Department that proposals for a design study are currently being formulated and the Commission is aware of its responsibilities under the Act. If a firm proposal is brought forward, the need for the preparation of an environmental impact statement will be considered in accordance with the Environment Protection Administrative Procedures.

Cholera (Question No. 366)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

Have Commonwealth Veterinary Officers found traces of cholera in the Beenleigh region of Queensland at any time during the last three years. If so, what are the details.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

No. Tests carried out on water samples collected by Commonwealth veterinary officers are not designed to detect the causative agent of cholera. These tests are done only on water supplies to export meat establishments.

Murphyores Incorporated Pty Ltd: Ilmenite Research (Question No. 371)

Senator McAuliffe:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did the Coalition Government in 1 964 make an agreement with Murphyores, or its associates, to develop a process for upgrading ilmenite to rutile grade material.
  2. Did the Coalition Government through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization select Murphyores as its partner because it was an Australianowned company and held rights to substantial heavy mineral deposits in Central Queensland.
  3. Did the Coalition Government make this decision in line with a then policy to develop northern Australia or north of the Tropic of Capricorn.
  4. Has this process, jointly owned by the Government and Murphyores, been developed to the stage where it is ready for large scale commercial development.
  5. Is the Government aware that Murphyores has been planning for years to use this process for upgrading the millions of tonnes of ilmenite in the Fraser Island deposits.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. I am informed, however that Murphyores Incorporated Pty Ltd entered into an agreement with CSIRO, effective from I April 1964, under which Murphyores contributed to the ilmenite research progam in the CSIRO Division of Mineral Chemistry; the agreement provided for collaborative research in connection with the reduction of ilmenite to yield a product from which iron can be removed to produce a material rich in titanium dioxide, as a substitute for rutile.
  2. I am informed that at the time of making the agreement CSIRO already had an on-going program of research, aimed at the development of a beneficiation process for ilmenites by a reduction-leach technique, and that the support provided by Murphyores as a result of the agreement enabled the work in the reductive aspect of the program to be expanded.
  3. 3 ) See answers to ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) above.
  4. I am informed that the ‘Murso’ process, owned jointly by CSIRO and Murphyores, resulted from work carried out under the collaborative research agreement referred to under ( I ), that the process has been the subject of pilot plant tests and feasibility studies, and that it is understood to be ready for commercial scale development.
  5. I understand that Murphyores did have under consideration the establishment of a plant which would employ the ‘Murso’ process and that the company contemplated treating ilmenites from Fraser Island as well as from Central Queensland and other east coast sources.

Solar Energy (Question No. 373)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 23 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What action has been taken on the development of solar energy under the United States-Australia Agreement for Scientific and Technical Co-operation.
  2. ) What action is proposed under current planning.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Two activities concerned with the development of solar energy have taken place under the United StatesAustralia Agreement for Scientific and Technical Cooperation. They were:

    1. A two-part activity consisting of:

A solar energy workshop held at the University of Sydney from 19 to 22 February 1974, organised conjointly by

Professor C. Watson-Munro of the University of Sydney and Professor F. H. Morse of the University of Maryland.

Joint meetings based on the CSIRO Division of Mechanical Engineering from 25 February to 1 March 1974, organised conjointly by Mr R. N. Morse, CSIRO, and Professor F. H. Morse.

  1. A workshop on flat plate solar collectors, held in San Francisco from 23 to 25 July 1975, organised in Australia by Mr R. N. Morse and Mr W. R. Read both of CSIRO and in the U.S.A. by Professor J. A. Duffie, University of Wisconsin and Professor F. H. Morse, University of Maryland.

    1. ) Continuing co-operation has arisen out of the activities identified above. No proposals for additional joint activities have been received for the current year.

Publication: Commercial Fish of Australia (Question No. 378)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 24 March 1977:

  1. Was the tender let by the Australian Government Publishing Service for the production of a prestige publication entitled Commercial Fish of Australia.
  2. ) Was the tender cancelled. If so, what were the circumstances involved in the cancellation.
  3. What were the number of copies to be printed and what was the tender price.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Tenders were called by the Australian Government Publishing Service but a contract was not awarded to any tenderer.
  2. The invitation to tender was cancelled because of a change in specification required by the client department.
  3. The number of copies to have been printed was in the vicinity of 2500. Tenders will be called again in the near future.

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal: Salary and Allowances (Question No. 381)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is the annual salary, annual expenses or entertainment allowance, and daily travelling allowance, paid to the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and member of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.
  2. What was the total staff in the employ of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board at the time of its disbandment.
  3. How many of these were transferred to (a) the Postal and Telecommunications Department, (b) the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, (c) other Government departments or statutory bodies, and how many have left the service of the Commonwealth.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Remuneration Tribunal has determined salaries and allowances for the following public offices of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal:
  1. 238 as at31 December 1976.
  2. (a, b and c) As at 1 January 1977, all positions reverted to the Postal and Telecommunications Department.

Three members of the staff have left the Service of the Commonwealth.

Sporting and Recreational Grants and Awards (Question No. 386)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 23 March 1976:

What is the nature and value of each financial grant, or other award, made by the Commonwealth Government to sport and recreational organisations in Australia this financial year.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: $5,280.50 has been paid to three national amateur sporting bodies this financial year to honour commitments. Assistance has been allocated as follows- $4 1 8 to the Amateur Boxing Union of Australia to assist with the administration of its national Senior Championships $508.50 to the Australian Casting Association to assist with the assembly costs of the Australian team for the World Casting Championships in Taree, New South Wales $4,354 to the Australian Volleyball Federation to assist with the administration of national championships; and to assist with the fares of a delegate to attend an international conference.

Australian War Memorial (Question No. 389)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 24 March 1977:

Have there been cuts this financial year in the funds allocated to the Australian War Memorial. If so, what adverse effects have these cuts had on the normal functions of the War Memorial.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

No.

Zircon (Question No. 390)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 24 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does the Department of National Resources and the Department of Overseas Trade maintain a floor price of $ 1 1 5 for export sale of Australian produced zircon.
  2. Are Australian producers, with the Department’s knowledge, commonly selling zircon overseas at prices down to $75.
  3. In view of the fact that Australia produces over 75 per cent of the world’s zircon and that the depressed prices are having a severely adverse effect on the Australian mineral sands industry, what steps will the Government take to maintain the floor price and prevent the fiercely competitive sales practices adopted by the Australian producers which cause Australia’s natural resources to be sold cheaply overseas.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Under special arrangements which operated until 25 March 1977, minimum export prices of $1 15 and $125 per tonne applied to the two standard grades of zircon concentrates.
  2. No.
  3. As I announced in my press statement of 25 March 1977, it has been decided to allow zircon to revert to a normal export control situation, with exports being closely monitored. There has been a buyers’ market and zircon prices overseas have weakened in recent months. It was in this light, and after carefully considering the views expressed by individual producers, that the change was made in the export control arrangements. I am looking to all the producers to co-operate and ensure as fair and reasonable prices as possible. In the longer term, neither the consumers, nor the producers nor Australia will benefit from excessively competitive sales practices.

Beef Research Levy (Question No. 392)

Senator Sibraa:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 24 March 1977:

Is the Minister considering a reduction in, or a phasing out, of the beef research levy, which is currently being imposed at a rate of $1.55 per head of stock.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The livestock slaughter levy is imposed at the rate of $ 1 . 56 per head in the case of cattle.

There are four components of the levy on cattle as follows:

The levy is only payable on cattle slaughtered for human consumption and is not payable unless the dressed carcase weight exceeds 90 kg.

The levy is payable by the person owning the cattle at the time of slaughter. However, when they have been purchased by a recognised slaughterer and are slaughtered within 30 days, the levy may be deducted from the purchase price, except the component for CSIRO meat processing research i.e. 1 cent.

I am not considering either a reduction or a phasing out of the livestock slaughter levy.

As part of consultations with industry organisations on proposals to reconstitute the Australian Meat Board, the components of the levy used to fund the Board have, of course, been open to review. This, however, is the extent of such consideration.

Area Improvement Program (Question No. 423)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 29 March 1977:

What projects under the Area Improvement Program for 1975-76 fell within the electoral divisions of Barton, St George, Cook, Evans and Phillip.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The following projects fell within the Electoral Division of Barton:

None of the projects which were funded under the Area Improvement Program for 1975-76 fell within the electoral divisions of Evans and Phillip.

Queensland Mining Projects: Environmental Impact Statements (Question No. 436)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 30 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has Queensland no specific legislation covering the use of environmental impact statements.
  2. Will a decision taken by a recent meeting of the Minerals and Energy Council result in State Governments taking responsibility in future for the preparation of environmental impact statements on new mining developments.
  3. If the answers to (1) and (2) are in the affirmative, what action does the Federal Government intend taking to ensure that adequate environmental impact statements on new mining projects are prepared by the Queensland Government.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Queensland has no such specific legislation.
  2. The respective roles of the Commonwealth and State Governments in the environment assessment of proposals, including mining proposals, is currently under review. The views of the Minerals and Energy Council will be taken into account in the course of this review.
  3. Not applicable.

Senate: Representation of Territories

Senator Durack:
LP

- Senator McLaren asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General the following question, without notice, on 24 February 1977:

  1. 1 ) What does the Government intend to do about the possibility of a Queensland Government challenge to the right of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory to be represented in this chamber.

Will the Government seek to intervene if there is a court challenge along the lines recommended by the Queensland Attorney-General, Mr Lickiss.

  1. Does the Government intend doing an about-face as it is now doing in respect of the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill.
  2. What is the Government’s attitude to the Chief Justice inviting such a challenge in a gratuitous and political manner.

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) A writ of summons seeking to challenge the validity of the Senate (Representation of Territories) Act 1973 was issued out of the High Court District Registry, Brisbane, on 3 March 1977. The plaintiffs named in the writ are the State of Queensland and the State Attorney-General, and the Commonwealth of Australia is named as defendant. The defence has already been put in and the Commonwealth will uphold the validity of the legislation.

Visit of Her Majesty the Queen to Canberra

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 10 March 1977 (Hansard, page 81) Senator Button asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning the use of fly spray at the various points visited during Her Majesty’s visit to Canberra. The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No arrangements were made to spray with fly spray the areas visited by Her Majesty in Canberra.

Postal Classification: Registered Publications

Senator Carrick:
LP

- Senator Thomas asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question, without notice, on 10 March 1977:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications aware that journals of trade unions receive a much more favourable postage rate in the registered publications service than do journals of employer organisations, including farmers’ organisations? Can the Minister take steps to correct this anomaly?

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

The different postal classification of employee and employer registered publications is an issue which has been raised ona number of occasions. The Australian Postal Commision is aware that the Registered Publications service contains a number of anomalies, including the one referred to by Senator Thomas. A review of the service is currently being undertaken with a view to removing as many of these anomalies as possible.

Commonwealth Conference in London

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 15 March 1977 (Hansard, page 126) Senator Sibraa asked me a question, without notice, concerning the Commonwealth Conference in London in June this year. The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

As I indicated in the House of Representatives on 10 March 1977 (Hansard, page 83) questions relating to the meeting will be the subject of consultations between Commonwealth countries. The Australian Government will play its part in the consultations. The honourable senator will be aware that our attitude on recent events in Uganda has been made clear.

I am not aware that the Canadian Government is considering a boycott of the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.

Queensland Rugby League: Broadcasting

Senator Carrick:
LP

- Senator McAuliffe asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question, without notice, on 16 March 1977:

I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is he aware that the Trade Practices Commission has determined that on an annual basis the contractual arrangements entered into between the Queensland Rugby League and radio station 4IP is a legitimate transaction and within the terms of the Trade Practices Act? In view of this, will the Minister therefore draw the decision of the Trade Practices Commission to the attention of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, and will he take immediate action to ensure that radio station 4BK ceases the illegal and pirate broadcasting of rugby league football in Queensland?

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

I am aware that the Trade Practices Commission has examined the proposed Agreement between South Queensland Broadcasting Corporation Pty Ltd.. licensees of radio station 4IP Brisbane, and the Queensland Rugby Football League providing for exclusive broadcasting rights to that station for a period of fi ve years.

The Commission found that ‘the agreement pre-empts the other commercial stations from competing in the broadcasting of league matches, reduces their ability to compete for a share of the advertising associated with football, and denies to some advertisers access to advertising time during the football broadcasts ‘ and therefore denied clearance.

The Commission also found ‘that the public benefits resulting from the agreement are not substantive enough to outweigh the anti-competitive effects of the agreement’ and therefore dismissed the application for authorisation.

The Commission also stated that it ‘would on balance be prepared to clear a one-season agreement, if the Leagues anc; 4IP, on consideration, wished to put it forward.’ It would seem that the parties to the original agreement would now need to approach the Commission for clearance for such a new agreement.

There does not appear to be any provision in the Broadcasting and Television Act which can be invoked to prevent broadcasting of sporting events by one station in contravention of an agreement made by another. However, Clauses 4.5 and 4.6 of the Agreement examined by the Trade Practices Commission provide for legal action by the League in such cases.

Illegal Cassettes

Senator Durack:
LP

- Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade, without notice, on 23 March 1977:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade aware that large numbers of inferior quality music cassettes made in Asia are being illegally imported into and sold in Australia to the public? Is the Minister also aware that the production and sale of these cassettes breach international copyright laws and that the current maximum penalty for importing cassettes into Australia is a $200 fine which at present is totally inadequate to prevent such imports? Does the Minister intend to take any action, such as stricter policing of these goods or substantially raising the maximum penalty, to correct this situation?

Senator Cotton has referred this question to me as the matters raised are within the administration of the Attorney-General and the answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

I understand there have recently been a number of successful prosecutions under the Copyright Act in respect of the importation and sale of pirated cassette recordings imported into Australia from Asia.

These cassettes are copies of legitimate sound recordings and are made without the permission of the copyright owner and without payment of royalties either to owner or the performing artist.

The Copyright Act contains both criminal and civil provisions dealing with the importation and sale of infringing sound recordings. Action has been taken recently under both these provisions.

I have also been informed that in February this year, in Melbourne approximately 2000 cassettes were confiscated pursuant to a Court order after a prosecution instituted by the Attorney-General ‘s Department. Other prosecutions are pending involving several thousand cassettes. At the same time the Australian copyright owners have brought civil actions and obtained orders restraining persons from selling pirate cassettes.

Consideration is being given at the present time to increasing the maximum penalties in respect of these offences.

Non-Automatic Telephone Exchanges (Question No. 17)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) For each State and for each Territory in Australia, how many telephone exchanges are not automatic exchanges.
  2. 2 ) What are the names of these exchanges.
  3. For each exchange, when is it planned that the exchange will be replaced by or absorbed into an automatic exchange.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (l)and(2)-

If the honourable senator requires details of any particular area, perhaps he might care to contact the Managing Director, Telecom Australia, who would be pleased to supply the information for him.

  1. The extent of the Commission’s automatic conversion program is under continuing review in the light of resources which can be allocated for this purpose. The fallowings exchanges are programmed for conversion to automatic in 1976-77:

New South Wales-

Alleena- absorbs Bellarwi

Callala Bay

East Gresford- absorbs Allynbrook

Elands- absorbs Brinawa

Forster

Gilgandra

Eccelston- absorbs Halton

Kandos

Kiama

McCullys Gap- absorbs Dunbars Creek

Muswellbrook

Oberon

Owens Gap

Smithtown

Tumbarumba

Tumut

Wallerawang

Wisemans Ferry

Yamba

Victoria-

Cann River- absorbs Tonghi Creek

Casterton- absorbs Bahgallah

Clear Lake- absorbs Toolondo

Combienbar

Dergholm

Carapooee- absorbs Emu

Merino- absorbs Henty

Noorimbee North

Dunrobin- absorbs Red Cap Creek

Strathdownie

Turriff- absorbs Speed

Queensland-

Ballugan

Bamaga

Boonarga

Bowen

Bringalily

Brigalow

Bryden

Chinchilla

Daintra

Darts Creek

Delta

Deversoir

El Arish

Electra

Eumundi

Esk

Goombungee

Greenmount

Haden

Longshaw

Kuttabul

MacKenzie River

Mossman

Mulei

Mt Elliott

Mt Larcom

Mt Jukeseast

Pennsfield

Rollingstone

Tamborine

Tungamill

Woolooga

Woodstock

Yakapari

South Australia-

Blyth

Lock

Western Australia-

Broome

Coolgardie

Gabbin

Harvey

Kulikup

Northampton

Quindanning

Widgiemooltha

Wyalkatchem

Yarloop

Tasmania-

Buckland

Meunna

Preolenna

St Marys

Swansea

Public Telephones: Cost of Vandalism (Question No. 26)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

What is the annual cost of vandalism to public telephones in (a) Australia, ( b) each State, and (c) each capital city.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Telecom Australia does not record separately the cost of vandalism to public telephones. However, a recent study estimates the annual costs as being:

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (Question No. 35)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Why were the three appointments to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal announced by the Minister on 23

December 1976 made by a Cabinet committee rather than the full Cabinet.

  1. Is it usual practice for appointments to statutory bodies to be made by a Cabinet committee rather than by the full Cabinet.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The three appointments to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and announced by the Minister on 23 December 1976 were made by the Executive Council.
  2. It is usual practice that appointments to statutory authorities are made by the Executive Council.

Telecom Australia and Australia Post:

Employment of Minors (Question No. 97)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is the definition of the term ‘minor’ under which Telecom Australia and Australia Post operate.
  2. Is it official policy of Telecom Australia and Australia Post that, where a minor is employed as a temporary lineman or temporary lines assistant, the minor concerned is to be replaced by an adult employee as soon as a suitable adult employee becomes available. If so, why.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The term ‘minor’ is used generally to describe an officer or employee who has not attained the age of 21 years but it is not defined in relevant Acts or regulations or by-laws under which Telecom Australia and Australia Post operate.
  2. No.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Program

Off Show (Question No. 103)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

Why did the Australian Broadcasting Commission decide to cancel The Off Show.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Off Show has not been cancelled by the ABC. Its transmission was postponed for production reasons. The series will go to air in the next few weeks.

Department of Foreign Affairs: Apprentices (Question No. 156)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of Foreign Affairs since 1 July 1970?
  2. By branch, for each year from 1970 to 1976, what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged?
  3. In 1977, what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged in each branch of the Department?
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. None.
  2. and (3) Not applicable.

Department of the Capital Territory:

Apprentices (Question No. 168)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of the Capital Territory since 1 July 1 970.
  2. By branch, for each year from 1 970 to 1 976 what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged.
  3. In 1977, what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged in each branch of the Department.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Motor mechanic; Panelbeating; Spray painting; Fitter; Horticulture; Welding.
  2. and (3)-

Stamp Preview: Paid Advertisement (Question No. 276)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Was a paid advertisement included with mailed copies of Australia Post’s first Stamp Preview for 1977. If so, (a) by whom was the advertisement placed, and (b) what revenue did Australia Post receive for this advertisement.
  2. (a) How many copies of the first Stamp Preview for 1977 were mailed, (b) what was the cost of production and (c) what were the mail handling costs.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Yes- to recipients in Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania only.

    1. Stamp News (W. Hornadge, Sterling Street, Dubbo, N.S.W. 2830).
    2. $1,220.

  2. –

    1. 262 855 copies.
    2. $4,492 for printing.
    3. $3,811 for folding, enveloping, bulk presorting and dispatch.

Economic Policy: Change Advocated by Queensland Treasurer (Question No. 321)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:

Did the Treasury recently prepare a document criticising in detail changes to the Federal Government’s economic policy advocated by the Queensland Treasurer, Mr Knox. If so, (a) at whose direction was the document prepared, (b) was the document circulated to Federal Liberal parliamentarians, (c) to whom was the document circulated other than Federal Liberal parliamentarians, and (d) what was the full text of the document.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The Minister Assisting the Treasurer, the Hon. Eric Robinson, has advised me as follows in respect of (a), (b), (c) and(d):

Following my receipt recently of a communication from the Queensland Treasurer, Mr Knox, canvassing current economic conditions, problems and policies I circulated to other recipients of that communication, for their information, a commentary upon it. Both Mr Knox’s document and my commentary on it were in the nature of private communications and, in accordance with long standing practice, I do not propose to make copies available publicly.

North-western Sydney: Broadcasting Station Licence (Question No. 323)

Senator McClelland:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 29 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the date of the decision by the Minister not to proceed with the issuing of a commercial broadcasting station licence for the north-western suburbs of Sydney.
  2. What was the date of the last meeting of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.
  3. At any time prior to the Board ‘s last meeting, was any approach made to the Board by the Minister, or anyone purporting to act on behalf of the Minister, requesting the Board to withdraw or review its recommendation concerning the awarding of the licence to Prospect Broadcasters Pty Ltd.
  4. Did the Board refuse to accede to the request and did the Board confirm its earlier recommendation following public hearings it had conducted.
  5. 5 ) Will the Minister table all papers and documents concerning the Government’s decision not to proceed with the licensing of the station.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 10 March 1977.
  2. 21 December 1976.
  3. No.
  4. Not applicable.
  5. I have examined the reports and documents concerned. It is not proposed to table these documents.

Aid to Indonesia (Question No. 372)

Senator Mcintosh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on notice, on 23 March:

  1. Did the Australian Ambassador to Indonesia, Mr Woolcott, in a cable urge the Australian Government to play a positive role in supporting a high level of assistance’ to Indonesia, at the April meeting of the Inter-Governmental Group on Indonesia?
  2. What is the Government’s position concerning Indonesian requests for US$600m in aid to be channelled through the members of the Inter-Governmental Group on Indonesia?
  3. Will Australia press for a lower level of aid to Indonesia through the Inter-Governmental Group on Indonesia, in view of reported atrocities in East Timor?
  4. Will the Australian delegation to the InterGovernmental Group on Indonesia be instructed to raise the question of the alleged gross violations of human rights by Indonesia?
  5. Has the Government any knowledge of moves by the Netherlands Government to raise these questions at the Inter- Governmental Group on Indonesia meeting?
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. The Government does not comment on reports which allege to divulge the contents of documents which are confidential to the Government.
  2. Indonesia’s request for external financing for its development programs, which is submitted annually to IGGI, is soundly based on a thorough evaluation of resources and requirements. Australia, in concert with other members of IGGI, therefore had no reason to question the estimates on which the request was based.
  3. No.
  4. No.
  5. No.

Pacific Islands: Establishment of Industrial Development Scheme (Question No. 375)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware of reports that New Zealand has taken special action to complement its aid program and to provide employment opportunities in the Pacific Islands by establishing an industrial development scheme which aims to encourage New Zealand companies to establish manufacturing enterprises in island nations.
  2. Are these reports correct. If so, has Australia examined this initiative.
  3. Is there any proposal, or has consideration been given to any proposal, for Australia to take similar action.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. Full details of the initiative have been made available to Australia and have been considered in detail by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau.
  3. In October 1976 I announced at a South Pacific Forum meeting in Suva the establishment of a three-year $60m aid commitment to the South Pacific. I also announced a number of new aid initiatives, one of which was the provision of grants to governments in the region to assist in financing their shares in joint ventures with Australian firms. This scheme aims at encouraging Australian private investment in the Pacific countries in accordance with Island Governments’ investment guidelines and in industry sectors preferred by them.

Government Printers (Question No. 379)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 24 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is the salary payable to the Australian Government Printer.
  2. What it the salary payable to the Government Printer for each of the States.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. $21,041.
  2. –

These rates do not include the increase stemming from the Federal Commission’s wage indexation decision of 31 March 1977 ($5.70 per week).

VHF FM Broadcasting (Question No. 380)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is being done about frequency allocation planning for VHF FM broadcasting.
  2. What steps have been taken to date to implement the changes recommended by Sir Francis McLean in 1974 involving the movement out of the VHF band of some other services.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The Report of the Inquiry into the Australian Broadcasting System (Green Report) made a number of recommendations involving the development of, VHF FM broadcasting. These are under consideration by an interdepartmental committee and I expect to receive its report in the next few weeks. A submission will then be made to the Government.
  2. ) Allocation of frequencies since 1 974 has been consistent with the recommendations of the McLean Report.

The honourable senator will recall that the McLean report has envisaged four phases of development: Phase 1 involves the clearing of television Channel 5. Phase II anticipates technological development in receivers which will allow a halving of channel spacings from 0.8 MHz to 0.4 MHz.

Phase III involves relocation of distance measuring equipment (DME) used by aircraft and the transfer of television Channel 4 to the space vacated. Phase IV involves relocation of some fixed and mobile services and the transfer of television Channel 3 to the space vacated. Phase I has been approved and is being implemented. The IDC report to which I referred is concerned with Phase III or its equivalent.

Tennant Creek to Alice Springs Microwave Link (Question No. 406)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 29 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) When is the microwave link to be extended from Tennant Creek to Alice Springs.
  2. What number of lines will it provide for subscriber trunk dialling and television.
  3. What work has been carried out and is being carried out, and when is it likely to be completed.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Telecom Australia has advised that the system is expected to be available for service late in 1 979.
  2. Ultimate capacity of the system will be 960 circuits, ISO of which, plus a television bearer, will be placed in service initially.
  3. Tenders have been called for all components of the system and some contracts have been placed. Construction of access roads and preparation of equipment sites is in progress, with completion by July 1 977 expected.

FM Broadcasting (Question No. 411)

Senator Ryan:
ACT

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 30 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister provide an estimate of the number and percentage of households in Australia which possess at least one radio equipped to receive FM broadcasts as at I January 1977.

  2. Will the Minister itemise the estimates according to the following districts:

    1. Sydney, (b) Melbourne, (c) Brisbane, (d) Adelaide, (e) Perth, (f) Hobart, (g) the Australian Capital Territory, and (h) the rest of Australia.
  3. Will the Minister provide a brief explanation of the method used to arrive at the estimates.
  4. What were the results of a survey commissioned by the Australian Broadcasting Commission in July 197S, along similar lines, for Australia, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania.
  5. Will the Minister provide an explanation of any significant disparities of estimates, in the results for parts 1, 2 and 4.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is not possible to give a figure for January 1 977. The latest available figure comes from a survey conducted by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in December 1975. The survey was for Melbourne only and showed that 33 per cent of respondents claimed to own an FM receiver. These results should be treated with caution, as detailed below.
  2. ) See answer to ( 1 ). A survey commissioned by the Australian Broadcasting Commission in May 1975 and using a national sample showed that 3 1 per cent of respondents claimed to own an FM receiver. However, when the interviewer checked the set, the figure dropped to 2 1 per cent.
  3. The three major surveys known to me were all random samples of the kind commonly used by market research organisations. However, the samples and the areas surveyed were different.
  4. See answers to (2). The ABC survey showed the following percentages of respondents claiming to have an FM set in the household:
  1. See answers to ( 1 ) and (2).

East Timor (Question No. 415)

Senator Mcintosh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 30 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware of an announcement by Congressman Fraser that the United States Congressional Committee on International Organisations proposes to interview East Timorese refugees who now reside in Portugal?
  2. Has the Minister noted that on the Channel 2 national news on 24 March 1977 East Timorese refugees were interviewed regarding atrocities in East Timor?
  3. In view of this preparedness by East Timorese refugees to appear before properly constituted inquiries, will the Minister outline what steps the Government proposes to take to gather information or hold an inquiry involving the refugees?
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am aware of news media reports to that effect.
  2. Yes.
  3. The gathering of information about events which take place in foreign countries is a routine diplomatic activity. The Government does not propose to hold a specific inquiry involving the refugees.

Commonwealth Car Drivers: Flexitime (Question No. 425)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 29 March 1977:

Has there been any request from drivers in Commonwealth car pools for a system of flexitime to be introduced on a permanent or on a trial basis. If so, what are the details including the car pool or pools involved and the decision which was made following the request. If not, what would be the response to such a request.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The introduction of a system of flexitime has been raised by a number of employee groups (including car drivers) within the Transport and Storage Division of my Department.

Managers of State Branches of the Division have been asked to consider whether or not the working arrangements for the various groups of employees can be adjusted to allow the introduction of a standard or modified flexitime system without loss of efficiency or increased operating costs.

It is expected that all branch reports will be received by the end of April and they will be considered during May.

Government Inquiries: Distribution of Reports (Question No. 435)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 31 March 1977:

  1. How many copies of (a) the report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry; (b) the report of the Inquiry into Australian Broadcasting; and (c) the Green Paper on Immigration Policies and Australia’s Population, were made available for distribution respectively to (i) members and senators; (ii) the Australian Government Publishing Service for sale to the general public; (iii) public libraries throughout Australia; and (iv) libraries of universities and other tertiary education institutions throughout Australia.
  2. Will the Government be making any additional copies available for distribution. If not, why not.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Copies of the undermentioned publications were distributed as indicated-
  2. Additional for sale copies will be printed in accordance with public demand.

Ethnic Radio

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 15 March Senator Davidson asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question without notice:

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer to comments made at the weekend about ethnic radio in South Australia which suggests that lack of funds will force a serious cutback in ethnic radio services after the end of June. I ask the Minister: What plans has the Government for the extension of ethnic radio, particularly to other capital cities? Has the Government received representations relating to the extension of ethnic radio? Finally, what is the latest information relating to the development of this very important service?

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

On 9 September 1976 the Government invited the Australian Broadcasting Commission to accept responsibility for ethnic broadcasting in Australia.

At the December meeting of the Commission the ABC agreed in principle to accept the Government’s offer subject to adequate finance being available and after consultations with the National Ethnic Broadcasting Advisory Council. The Council was appointed in February 1977 to advise both the Government and the ABC on how ethnic radio should be structured and operated in the future.

The ABC has not yet completed its preparation for the transfer of the existing ethnic stations 2EA and 3EA from the Postal and Telecommunications Department and to my knowledge has not made plans at this stage for the extension of a service to cities other man Sydney and Melbourne.

I have received representations from time to time on behalf of ethnic groups currently taking advantage of the access provisions on public broadcasting stations such as 5UV Adelaide, 2XX Canberra and 6NR Perth.

It is expected that the ABC will be in a position to take control of the existing ethnic radio stations during the second half of 1977.

Mount Barker Telephone Exchange

Senator Messner:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question, without notice, on 29 March 1977:

I refer to the considerable concern at the apparent delay in establishing a new telephone exchange at Mount Barker in South Australia. Is the Minister able to say when the new exchange in this area of very rapid population growth will be opened in order to relieve the presently overloaded temporary unit.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Telecom Australia has advised that the new exchange building should be completed by the end of April 1977. The project was advanced so that requirements for additional trunk line equipment related to providing trunk circuits to Monarto could be met. However, because of changes to the South Australian State Government plans for Monarto, these requirements have been deferred.

Installation of exchange equipment in the new building is now expected to be completed in late 1978-79. This will replace the exchange equipment now installed in transportable units. Telecom has indicated that no problems are expected in coping with development in the area to that time. The present exchange is automatic, with full STD facilities.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 April 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1977/19770421_senate_30_s72/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant