Senate
24 May 1977

30th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 1209

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator WITHERS:
Minister for Administrative Services · Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

- Mr President, I inform the Senate that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) has been appointed also Minister Assisting the Prime Minister. He will continue to hold his present portfolio. The Minister will be assisting the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) across the whole range of matters handled by the Prime Minister other than the areas covered by other Ministers Assisting the Prime Minister. The Minister will handle some policy matters on the Prime Minister’s behalf, and, in particular, will relieve him of some of the day to day administrative load. He will work closely with the Prime Minister’s office and keep him fully briefed on matters he is handling on his behalf. The Minister will begin his new duties immediately.

page 1209

PETITIONS

East Timor

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 69 citizens of Australia:

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

Whereas there is mounting evidence that some 60 000, perhaps as many as 100 000, East Timorese may have been lulled since the invasion of East Timor by Indonesian forces; and

Whereas a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations on 12 December 1973, stated that it strongly deplored the military intervention of the armed forces of Indonesia in Portuguese Timor’ and ‘calls upon the Government of Indonesia to desist from further violation of the territorial integrity of Portuguese Timor and to withdraw without delay its armed forces from the Territory in order to enable the people of the Territory freely to exercise their right to self-determination and independence ‘; and

Whereas Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Andrew Peacock, in a statement to the House of Representatives on 4 March 1976, described Australia’s policy on East Timor as ‘clear’ and calling for ‘the withdrawal of Indonesian troops’, ‘a cessation of hostilities’, ‘the implementation of an act of self-determination and a resumption of humanitarian aid through the International Committee of the Red Cross ‘;

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

Ensure that the Australian Government re-state this policy on East Timor publicly and unequivocally and

pursue the implementation of the said policy as strongly as possible.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Compulsory Retirement of Government Employees

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 146 citizens of Australia:

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

That Australian Government employees strenuously 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:

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;

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;

Existing rights of reinstatement in tenured employment are abrogated by the Bill;

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.

As currently drafted the Bill overrides entitlements under Arbitration awards.

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

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Education

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

That all people have the right to education, irrespective of class, age, sex, sexuality and ethnic background, and that it is the responsibility of Government to ensure that sufficient funds are allocated to protect that right.

Your petitioners believe that:

  1. . Education is a right and not a privilege to be paid for.
  2. A loans scheme would discriminate against the most needy students.
  3. If all students were eligible for the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme and received an adequate TEAS allowance there would be no need for student loans.
  4. Students should not be forced to incur debts in order to receive an education.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the needs based grants scheme should in no way be jeopardised by any other program of student assistance, including partial, supplementary or comprehensive loans schemes.

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 in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the delays between the 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.

That proposals to amend the Consumer Price Index by eliminating particular items from the Index could adversely affect the value of future increases in aged 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 C.P.I. 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 Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Metric System

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the metric system and request the Government to restore the imperial system.

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

Petition received.

page 1210

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1210

QUESTION

EDUCATION FUNDING

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-Will the Minister for Education give an undertaking that the Federal Government will continue to finance, fully, Australian universities and colleges of advanced education in the calendar year 1 978?

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

– The funding for the calendar year 1978 has been announced. The Government has made no decisions affecting that announcement and, as such, it remains.

page 1210

QUESTION

EDUCATION NEEDS

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is also addressed to the Minister for Education. It relates to current public interest in various phases of education expenditure in the future as well as the report just issued in the United Kingdom by the Central Policy Review Staff which states that big changes in education policies will be required to meet ‘dramatic development in population trends over the next 25 years’. Has the Minister’s Department made any survey of education needs in Australia during that period ahead, taking into account the findings of the Australian Population and Immigration Council? Has it researched possible needs for that period in such areas as technical and adult education insofar as they are related to likely employment and social circumstances? Has the Minister had any conference with State departments on these or related matters? I would be appreciative if he could give any further information relating to this important development.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– A great deal of work has been done in recent months in relation to not only population trends in Australia as they affect education but also changes in the trends of community attitudes and technological demands and requirements. The result has been that we have set up, for example, the Williams Committee of inquiry into education and training. I draw the attention of Senator Davidson to the terms of reference of that Committee. Those terms of reference embrace virtually every point raised by Senator Davidson. The Committee is hard at work. It should be able to report by about June of next year. The Tertiary Education Commission will have the responsibility of setting up various inquiries along these lines. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development did a study on transition from school to work and the need for technological training. A wide variety of studies has been carried out.

Senator Davidson:

asked whether discussions had taken place between the Commonwealth and the States. The answer to that question is yes. Extensive discussions took place, particularly through the forum of the Australian Education Council. To relate this matter purely, shall we say, to the trends that are shown in the Borrie report would, I think, be wrong. One must apprehend, for example, the relative stagnation of school and college populations in the years immediately ahead when looking at, shall we say, teacher demand. But, of course, one cannot predict what future immigration trends will be or indeed the fecundity of the Australian population. As such, one would need to revise these matters on population trends horn year to year.

page 1211

QUESTION

DARWIN CYCLONE TRACY RELIEF TRUST FUND

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory by reminding him that some weeks ago he promised to bring a full report into the Senate on the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund. The Minister will recall that both his office and the office of the Minister for the Northern Territory gave me an assurance that that report would be made no later than the parliamentary sitting week beginning on Tuesday, 22 March 1977. Can the Minister now inform the Parliament what happened to the report?

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

– I was of the view that that report had been put down. I shall check the facts and report to the Senate following that inquiry.

page 1211

QUESTION

APPAREL MANUFACTURERS

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. With the collapse of a number of Australian apparel manufacturers, those who stood by those manufacturers for as long as possible by buying the Australian made goods are now being penalised in that they are being prevented from obtaining quotas for overseas supplies by reason of the allocation of import quotas to those confederates who, by their level of imports, were substantially responsible for the downfall of the Australian industry. As considerable Press and industry speculation exists on matters relating to the auctioning of or tendering for import quotas for textiles or apparel, can the Minister advise whether discussions will be held for the reallocation of import entitlements, having regard to the great changes that have taken place in the retail trade since quotas were applied?

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

– The whole matter of quotas, in the context in which the honourable senator is asking his question, is under very detailed study at the moment by the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs which administer these various areas. It is a difficult and a very complex situation indeed. Obviously certain areas are in need of some reform. The matter does need to be studied in fine detail because, as is normal in these matters, everybody wants his own position solved at the expense of everybody else.

page 1211

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE GROWTH

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that, when the Prime Minister announced a ceiling on the growth in the Commonwealth Public Service, the Premier of Queensland said that there was no need for such a measure in Queensland, that Queensland was the greatest earner of export revenue of all the States, and that it was a developing State which needed an enlarged public service to administer it? Is the Minister aware that last week the Premier’s Deputy, Mr Knox, said that the rate of increase in the Public Service in Queensland had remained almost static and that in the last 9 months it had increased by 0.05 per cent, one of the smallest increases ever in the Queensland Public Service. Does the Minister view this as a pause in recruitment in the Public Service in Queensland; which of the 2 leaders does he think is telling the truth; and which one of the 2 policies does he favour?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I think that that is a matter which Queenslanders ought to sort out with their Government. It is not a matter on which I as a member of the Commonwealth Government ought to have a view or in which I should interfere.

page 1211

QUESTION

STUDY OF AIRLINE PILOTS

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I draw the Minister’s attention to the recent report of the United States National Transportation Study Board dealing with an intensive study of the lifestyle of pilots, in and out of the cockpit, to see whether fatigue and imprecise crew communications are major factors in airline accidents. Is the Minister aware of this report? If so, will it be made available to the appropriate officers of the Department for study?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I personally am not aware of the report. I am quite sure that my colleague the Minister for Transport is aware of it. It sounds as though it is a most valuable report. All honourable senators will be aware that studies are being undertaken, in this country and in other countries, of the lifestyle of pilots. I will bring the question to the attention of my colleague and seek a comment from him.

page 1211

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT FOR SCHOOL LEAVERS

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, by reminding the Minister that it is now more than 4 weeks since the High Court finalised its declaration that the Director-General of Social

Security did not have discretion to deny unemployment benefit to school leavers during the last long vacation and that the time for appeal against that declaration has long since passed. I ask the Minister: When will the Government announce any decision that it has made on what action it will take in the light of Karen Green’s case? Is the Government to announce a decision? Is the Government to make a decision in the light of this case or is the Government merely to ignore the decision of the High Court and the law of this land?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– The case of Karen Green is under review by the Director-General of the Department following the High Court judgment and it will be finalised as soon as possible. If a re-examination of Karen Green’s case requires the Director-General to review other cases where unemployment benefit was not paid, that review will be made by him. The DirectorGeneral, having undertaken the review and made his decision, will announce that decision as soon as possible.

Senator GRIMES:

– I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister telling the Senate that the entire decision will be the decision of the Director-General of Social Security and not the decision of the Government? Will not the Government in fact direct the Director-General of Social Security as to what decision he will make?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I have nothing substantial to add to what I have already said. The Act requires the Director-General of Social Security to satisfy himself with regard to eligibility for the payment of any benefits or pensions under the Social Services Act. That is the requirement of the Act. The Director-General will make a statement following his review of the particular case and of any other cases that may have relation to it.

page 1212

QUESTION

FUNERAL DIRECTORS

Senator MISSEN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I refer to the report in the Age of 17 May 1977 which outlines the campaign being mounted by the Angilican Church against exploitation in the funeral industry. Is the Minister aware that an interim report alleged many instances of overcharging and dishonest practices used by funeral directors on the bereaved and usually vulnerable next of kin? Can the Minister indicate what action the Federal Government can and will take to ensure a fair and respectable deal to the public from the funeral directors?

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

– I have not seen the report to which Senator Missen refers. I will draw the report and the details of his question to the attention of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and will endeavour to obtain an early reply from him.

page 1212

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR: RADIO MESSAGES

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, refers to reports of jamming of messages from East Timor on 14 and 18 May. Is the Government aware of such incidents of jamming? Can he state whether such jamming emanated from any source in Australia? Further, can he assure the public that no Australian Government agency or individuals were involved in such jamming?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-This question would be rightly directed to me in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I personally am not aware of the details stated by the honourable senator. I shall seek the information from my colleague for the honourable senator.

page 1212

QUESTION

LAMBING STATISTICS

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the drop in lambing figures for March this year, which figures show a fall of 100 000 head in Tasmania alone? Because of our excellent autumn season, it has been claimed that the drop is due not to seasonal conditions but to the lack of fertiliser used by farmers which, of course, is a result of the enormous increase in the cost of this commodity despite the government subsidy. This comment is substantiated by the fact that in 1973-74 180 000 tonnes of superphosphate were used in Tasmania, whilst in 1975-76 only 58 000 tonnes were spread. Will the Minister investigate these claims, because if they are correct the long term repercussions to the industry and to Australia as a whole would be disastrous?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I have had some experience with lambing, but I personally am not responsible for this disaster. What I do know is that the problem may well be due to something quite unrelated to the cause suggested in the question. Many years ago in Western Australia there was a problem of low fertility in lambing ewes caused b y the use of subterranean clover of a variety which produced large doses of oestrogen. I imagine that the problem may need to be investigated in depth. I certainly undertake to do what I can to direct it to the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry. I shall pay close attention to results in the next 9 months. Honourable senators may all come to me for some comfort.

page 1213

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer and is in 3 parts. I ask: Firstly, was the decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission this morning in breach of the wage-price squeeze? Secondly, if the air traffic controllers, contrary to the announcement of the Prime Minister, were to receive lc, or indeed 2c, would that be in breach of the wage-price freeze? Thirdly, will the Minister table in the Senate a list of companies whose dividend policies in the past month have been in breach of the criteria laid down at the beginning of the wage-price squeeze?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I think this is one of those questions which ought to go on notice.

page 1213

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Has he seen reports that the Premier of South Australia has withdrawn his support for the prices and wages freeze? Did not the South Australian Premier give his full support to such a freeze when it was first suggested? Does not his new stand on the matter clearly show that once again he has bent to the demands of the radical section of the trade unions in South Australia? Is the Leader of the Government aware also that Mr Dunstan ‘s actions now leave the way open for the South Australian Government to increase State taxes which in some instances are already the highest in Australia, thereby adversely affecting the further development and expansion of industry in that State? Will not Mr Dunstan ‘s new stand on the prices and wages freeze also encourage industry to increase its prices, which could lead to an increase in the consumer price index in South Australia?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Mr Dunstan ‘s unilateral and premature action in withdrawing from the agreement made by all heads of government, including Mr Dunstan, on 13 April is only to be deplored. After all, it was done without consultation with the Commonwealth or any State government. One can only speculate about Mr Dunstan ‘s motives. He said the action was taken because of threats to business viability and employment opportunities. The experience of the Prices Justification Tribunal does not support this. Only a very few companies have availed themselves of procedures available through the

PJT. As the honourable senator said, there certainly has been union pressure in South Australia to break the pause. Honourable senators can therefore make up their own minds as to the Premier’s real motives. I understand that Mr Dunstan has been making a lot of noises about an election this year. I suggest that he now have one and test his action with the population of South Australia.

page 1213

QUESTION

ROYAL COMMISSION ON INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the tabling of the third report of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security which, as the Minister knows, is confined to restructuring our security organisations. I have frequently asked whether the Government contemplated, following the Hope report, the establishment of a tribunal to consider rejected citizenship applications. As this is the third and final report of the Royal Commission, I ask: What happened to the first and second reports? Did any of the reports make any reference to the establishment of a tribunal to review citizenship applications that have been rejected?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The Prime Minister has clearly indicated that the Government will be as forthcoming as national security permits regarding its announcements and tabling of the reports of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security. In relation to the particular matter raised by the honourable senator, the Government will make a further announcement to the Parliament about the reports of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security as soon as possible after the Prime Minister returns to Australia at the conclusion of the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government.

page 1213

QUESTION

TASMANIAN HEALTH SERVICES

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to an advertisement in the Australian on Saturday, 2 1 May, which reads:

Department of Health Services, Tasmania, Locums . . . A locum is desired to relieve in the district Medical Officer’s Post at Derby from Thursday, 26 May, to Monday, 13 June 1977. A salary rate of $502 a week will apply and a considerable amount of extra remuneration can be obtained by charging certain types of patients ‘in hours’ and all patients ‘out of hours’ at a prescribed rate.

I ask the Minister: Does this mean that the Department regards the doctor’s salary as low at $502 a week and is condoning the practice of a doctor’s seeing a patient ‘in hours’ and referring that patient to himself as ‘out of hours’ so that he can be paid at the prescribed rate for doing procedural work such as minor operations?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-I am unable to comment on some of the assumptions or assertions that may have been made in the question. I do want to say that the level of remuneration paid by the Tasmanian Department of Health Services to doctors serving in the district medical officer scheme is entirely a matter for that Department. The scheme does receive some funding from the Commonwealth Government under the health program grant arrangements. But as the matters raised by the honourable senator are matters of internal operation of a Stateorganised scheme, it is not appropriate for me to comment and I have no information on them.

page 1214

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT FOR SCHOOL LEAVERS

Senator WRIEDT:

-My question which is directed to the Minister for Social Security follows the question asked by Senator Grimes. Is it not true that it was a decision of the Government to deny unemployment benefit to school leavers? Is it also not true that the decision of Mr Justice Stephen in the Karen Green case was to say that the Government acted in breach of the law in denying those school leavers unemployment benefit. Is it not the Government’s responsibility to take action as a result of Mr Justice Stephen’s ruling?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– In regard to the first question, it was the announced policy of the Government early last year that there would not be automatic unemployment benefit for school leavers immediately on the cessation of a school year. Under the Social Services Act the DirectorGeneral has to be satisfied that steps have been taken by the applicant to obtain employment, and that he is eligible and available for employment. There are other matters on which the Director-General must be satisfied in accordance with the Act.

The second question raised the matter of Mr Justice Stephen’s judgment. I do think it should be said that many of the comments that have been made in this place and in the Press in regard to that judgment do misstate the judgment itself and it was for that reason that the entire judgment was incorporated in Hansard. I think the honourable senator who directed the question would rephrase it if he were to read that judgment entirely. As I said earlier in answer to Senator Grimes, the Director-General is studying the judgment and the matter is under review by him. In accordance with the Act he will announce his own decision in regard to this particular case and others relating to school leavers. As far as the Government’s responsibility is concerned, its policy in regard to school leavers was announced. The Government is requiring the Director-General to pursue that policy in accordance with the Act and that will be announced as a decision by the Director-General in due course.

page 1214

QUESTION

LUCERNE APHID PLAGUE

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. The question concerns an insect, the American lucerne aphid as I believe it is called. Some members of the Labor Party may think this is funny, but it is not very funny for people in the rural areas of New South Wales. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the presence of an aphid in plague proportions in rich pastoral areas such as the Upper Hunter Valley in my own State of New South Wales where it is destroying lucerne crops and causing major damage to rural industry? Can the Minister indicate the extent of the plague infestation? Is any information available as to the source of the aphid? Do we know anything about the potential for treatment or eradication of what is really quite a disastrous infestation? Can the Minister indicate the possible role that the Commonwealth Government could play in assisting in this area?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I do have a lot of information on this subject. I will have to paraphrase it as best I can. It is characteristic of Australia that introduced pests, vermin and plants have a tremendous capacity to flourish here when in their own environment they tend not to flourish. They do not have the natural pests and predators to kill them off in this country- as we have in the Senate- and therefore they nourish and spread. The aphid infestation is, I have been informed, very serious. It entered North America in 1954 and it does have a very serious effect in that country. It has a very serious potential effect here. The Australian hay, green fodder and seed crops are valued at between $120m and $150m per annum. The outbreak that we now have in this country could place a large part of that at risk. This aphid does have a very wide range of host species, including legumes and ornamentals, but it does not attack peanuts, white or subterranean clover or soya bean, so that is some comfort for some honourable senators who are here. This matter was discussed at the special meeting of the Standing Committee of the Australian Agricultural Council on 4 May. It was then reported that thousands of acres of lucerne in New South Wales had been ruined, particularly Hunter River varieties.

Work on the problem of control is now in the hands of the State agricultural departments and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The following are the main approaches, and I would need to get some more paper work done for the Senate on this after question time. A spray program is going on in Queensland. The authorities are recommending that and they are starting to move on it. Biological controls within the CSIRO are being investigated; resistant strains of lucerne are being looked at. There is also a development in Deniliquin that produced a new strain that might be able to withstand this insect. There are also some management practices relating to the time of the cutting of the crop. I will get more information for the honourable senator and I commend him for his interest in a very serious matter.

page 1215

QUESTION

CHRISTMAS ISLAND: PROPERTY DAMAGE

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question is addressed to the Minister for Administrative Services. Is it a fact that on Saturday, 7 May, damage was done to a number of cranes and other equipment on Christmas Island which are the property of the British Phosphate Commission? Has the Minister seen a statement issued on Monday, 9 May by the Union of Christmas Island Workers expressing condemnation of the type of damage that was carried out to the implements. Have Commonwealth Police at Christmas Island investigated the circumstances of the damage? Can the Minister say what action is contemplated in the matter?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The answer to each of the first 3 questions is yes. As to the fourth question, I am awaiting a report from the Commonwealth Police as a result of their investigations. When I have received that report, if I have any further information I will let the honourable senator have it.

page 1215

QUESTION

RADIO RECEPTION

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications aware of the extremely poor reception experienced by listeners to Adelaide University radio station 5UV? Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the fact that this poor reception is caused reportedly by persistent and strong interference from an Australian Broadcasting Commission station in Western Australia? Is he aware that listeners from 20 metropolitan area suburbs have lodged consistent complaints over this interference? Will the Minister investigate these complaints with a view to allocating another frequency to radio station 5UV, as this seems to be the only way to correct the problem.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have some information on this matter. I have been aware of the claims concerning the difficulty of communication and interference. The Department of Post and Telecommunications is aware that the licensee of station 5UV is concerned about apparent interference to transmissions from the station. This matter is currently under investigation and, if the reports are substantiated, action will be taken to remedy the situation. Any such remedy will, of course, be subject to the limitations that exist in allocating frequencies in the heavily congested medium frequency broadcasting band. I understand, too, that another constraint would be a financial one in that the licensee would wish to continue to use an omnidirectional aerial.

page 1215

QUESTION

EXPORTS TO EAST TIMOR: APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I refer the Minister to the decision by Mr Justice Forster in the Northern Territory Supreme Court to uphold the appeals by 3 men against a conviction of attempting to export illegally firearms and medical supplies to East Timor from Darwin. In view of the determination of the Prime Minister in 1976 to have the case prosecuted, does the Government intend to appeal against Mr Justice Forster ‘s decision?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I will refer that question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

page 1215

QUESTION

ALLEGED CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ACTIVITIES IN AUSTRALIA

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government. I refer to various allegations made recently by Mr Philip Agee, a former Central Intelligence Agency agent, with regard to CIA activities and other matters in Australia. Does the Government consider that such statements are authentic or that the statements that have been attributed to Philip Agee may be based on hearsay and are possibly a hoax? What is the present whereabouts of Philip Agee?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I hope that before the suspension for dinner I shall be making a statement on behalf of the Prime Minister concerning these allegations. I suggest that the honourable senator await that statement?

page 1216

QUESTION

STAFFING DISPUTES IN DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. I ask: What progress has been made in resolving the staffing disputes in her Department which have caused work bans in 2 States, particularly in South Australia? Does the Minister believe that a satisfactory resolution of the staffing and training problems can be obtained before next Friday’s meetings when further work bans will be discussed? Finally, is the Minister satisfied with the present service to the public, taking account of the evidence of long queues in offices of the Department, the small percentage of telephone callers able to make contact with State offices and the fact that the Department will not handle any queries from members of Parliament.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-Negotiations with regard to the industrial disputes are proceeding between the Public Service Board, the Department and the Australian Clerical Officers Association. I am hopeful that these matters will be able to be resolved. Discussions have been held in Melbourne. As I have been asked particularly concerning South Australia, I can say only that discussions are proceeding. Mr Corrigan and Mr Scott of my Department attended a meeting of some 200 staff in South Australia. This meeting gave staff members the opportunity to express their concern over the effects of the current staff ceilings. In turn, information was given on the action being taken in conjunction with the Public Service Board to obtain additional staff and to facilitate the greater utilisation of existing staff. As with the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association Federal Executive decision in relation to the Melbourne work bans, staff at the Adelaide meeting expressed concern at the breaking of the agreement for a joint working party to examine the departmental staffing in South Australia. There was no evidence at the meeting to suggest that the work bans would be lifted in the near future. As I said earlier, these negotiations are continuing with the Public Service Board in order to resolve the matter.

I was asked whether I am satisfied with regard to the present services in the Department to the public. I am very concerned that members of staff in the Department have withdrawn services from the public. I hope that the discussions that are held will enable service to be given to the maximum extent possible within the Department. I am concerned that representations made through members of Parliament are not being serviced within the Department. It seems to be overlooked by members of staff in the Department that many persons use members of Parliament to negotiate on their behalf. To suggest that this action does not withdraw services to the public I think overlooks the very real role that members of Parliament play as representatives of the people in their own electorates or in a wider sphere. I am hopeful that in a short time there will be some resolution of the matter. I repeat that there may need to be- some reorganisation to utilise existing staff numbers rather than the adoption of the suggestion that the automatic solution is an increase in staff. These matters are now being discussed with the Public Service Board. I hope that an early resolution of the whole industrial problem can be achieved.

page 1216

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH HOSTELS: FACILITIES FOR THE HANDICAPPED

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations concerning the use, and problems in the use, as I understand it, by handicapped persons, particularly the visually handicapped, of Commonwealth hostels. I refer especially to visually handicapped persons who wish to use the hostels but face problems because of inadequate facilities for handicapped people in the hostels. Can the Minister say whether facilities are provided, or will be made available in Commonwealth hostels, appropriate for use by the handicapped, especially the visually handicapped? Can the Minister also say whether the small number of handicapped persons who are not public servants and therefore, as I understand it, are unable to use these hostels at all but who wish to do so, might be permitted to do so where facilities are provided in the future?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-To the extent that accommodation is not required for staff of Australian Government departments and authorities and for members of the defence forces located at defence headquarters, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has approved the admission of casual guests at non-subsidised tariff rates. However, the guest houses are not designed for use by handicapped people. This would include those who are visually handicapped. The admission of visually handicapped people undoubtedly would provide some problems in these hostels. If the honourable senator is aware of any instance where visually handicapped people are having difficulty finding suitable accommodation I suggest that he let me know the details and I will then pass them on to the Minister.

page 1217

QUESTION

VEHICLE SPARE PARTS

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to statements concerning the Prices Justification Tribunal hearing on vehicle spare parts made yesterday by Mr J. Zahara counsel for the Automobile Association of Australia. He said that the threat by the car parts companies to withhold information relating to profit margins was tantamount to ‘bullying tactics’. Mr Zahara said further:

This is nothing more than blackmail and a contempt of this tribunal and the Minister for Consumer Affairs, who directly caused this inquiry.

Does the Government support the Tribunal ‘s decision not to accept confidential information from the companies on an informal basis? Will the Government urge the companies to make available to the Tribunal itself all information relevant to the inquiry in order for a proper decision to be ascertained?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I shall pass on that question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and endeavour to obtain an early reply from him.

page 1217

QUESTION

HEATING OF POLLING BOOTHS

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– Is the Minister for Administrative Services aware that a number of busy polling booths in Victoria had no heating on Saturday which, by any standards, was a very cold day in that State? In view of the fact that polling clerks are on duty for some 15 hours or more on polling days, will the Minister take some action before the next Federal election to see that suitable heating is provided in polling booths where none exists at present?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I shall draw the attention of the Chief Australian Electoral Officer to the matter raised by the honourable senator.

page 1217

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN RAILWAY WORKERS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. It refers to some alarming statements about South Australian rail jobs made by the General Manager of the Australian National Railways in Adelaide recently. On 10 May the Adelaide Advertiser reported that the General Manager had said on the previous day that thousands in the South Australian railway work force would have to lose their jobs before the system could operate efficiently and competitively. He is also reported as having said: ‘I am talking about the kind of reductions that will make you all in South Australia cry. We are talking about thousands of jobs lost. Passenger services are the curse of the railways’. As these reports created a lot of concern among railway men and railway organisations and were rebutted in the newspaper the next day, will the Minister have the statement clarified? If necessary, will he ask the General Manager or the Australian National Railways Commissioner to make appropriate statements to clear up the matter?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I have not seen the report in the Adelaide Advertiser adverted to by Senator Bishop, nor have I seen the rebuttal, but I shall seek them out and inform myself. The matter is an important one. I can understand anxiety among railway workers and others in this regard. I shall refer the question to my colleague, the Minister for Transport, and seek his comments on it.

page 1217

QUESTION

PRESENCE OF KGB AGENT IN AUSTRALIA

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. It concerns a purported KGB agent in Australia. Can the Government say whether there has been in Australia a Russian diplomat by the name of Raina? Is the Government aware that recently Raina was reported as being in Melbourne interviewing a Soviet citizen who had defected? Is Raina the person who was expelled from Britain in 1971 because he was a KGB agent? Can the Minister say when Raina was admitted to Australia? Can he say whether it is the Government’s intention to expel Raina?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I shall seek the information for the honourable senator.

page 1217

QUESTION

ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT: TRANSFER OF OFFICER

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. I refer to the announcement by Mr Harders, Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department, concerning the transfer of an officer who gave advice in his own free time to a member of Parliament. Did the Attorney-General authorise Mr Harders to make this statement? On what grounds is it considered that the officer placed himself in conflict with his departmental duties? Does the Minister consider that Mr Harders’ action infringes the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 111? Will the Minister clarify the ambit of duty of departmental officers as it relates to their own time and will he indicate the guidelines which exist for public servants? Does Mr Harders’ decision mean that public servants cannot engage in political activities outside their normal working hours?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– This question raises a number of matters of detail and also some of considerable constitutional importance. I think it would have been more appropriate if the question had been put on notice. As it has not, I shall refer it in full detail to the Attorney-General.

page 1218

QUESTION

NORFOLK ISLAND: ADMINISTRATION

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– The Minister for Administrative Services will recall having indicated to the Senate some time ago that he proposed to visit Norfolk Island at the first opportunity to hear the views of local residents about the future administration of the island, especially in the context of the Nimmo report. Can the Minister say whether he has set a date for such a visit? What opportunities will he provide to enable local residents to put their views to him on this important issue?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Subject to the Senate completing its business on Friday of next week, I intend to leave Australia on the following Tuesday. I have been invited by the Norfolk Island Council to be its guest on Bounty Day, which is the principal festive day on the island. I will be attending the parade in the morning, a wreathlaying ceremony, and the Bounty Ball that night. During my time on the island I will speak to the Norfolk Island Council. I will then stay on a number of days so I may speak to residents. Already 12 or 15 residents have written to me asking whether they may have appointments to see me. I have readily agreed. I will endeavour to see as many people as wish to see me so that they may put their views to me privately.

page 1218

QUESTION

PRICES AND WAGES FREEZE

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Does the Minister representing the Prime Minister know, as reported in the West Australian last Friday, that the Western Australian Premier last Thursday explicitly refused to take any action to curb a 25 per cent increase in meat prices and stated that the increase was inevitable? In so doing, was Sir Charles Court rejecting the Prime Minister’s statement in the House of Representatives on 27 May that there ought to be no exception to the wages and prices freeze? In fact, did Sir Charles not opt out of the prices freeze before Mr Dunstan officially called off South Australian participation?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The answer is no.

page 1218

QUESTION

PAKISTAN

Senator MISSEN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the report of Amnesty International published on 16 May 1977 which expressed deep concern at the treatment of political opponents of the Government of Pakistan. Is the Government aware that according to the report the Pakistan Government has detained several thousand political prisoners, most of them without trial, and that allegations of beatings and police intimidation are reported? Will the Australian Government consider making a request to Pakistan to release these detainees and abide by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I will certainly pass that request on to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is sensible and reasonable and one that should have the support of all honourable senators.

page 1218

QUESTION

SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In answer to a question from Senator Kilgariff he said that later there was to be a report on Government policy on intelligence and security. Will he state whether the report is accurate that Mr Agee, a former Central Intelligence Agency employee, will not be granted a visa to enter Australia if he applies? In view of the serious nature of statements made by Mr Agee does the Government not believe that his presence in Australia could be of benefit in inquiring into recent allegations of CIA interference in Australia ‘s political and industrial affairs?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I said earlier that I would be making a statement on behalf of the Prime Minister at a later hour this day. I will reserve my comments until then.

page 1218

QUESTION

COLONIAL MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen the latest annual report of the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd which refers to the insurance business carried on by that Australian company in Rhodesia and to the company’s offices in Salisbury and Bulawayo? Is this a breach of the United Nations sanctions against Rhodesia? If it is not, will the Government be prepared to provide guidelines as to what constitutes a breach of those sanctions? It would appear on the face of it that the carrying on of business by an Australian incorporated company in Rhodesia is departing from the decisions of the United Nations on this question.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-No, I have not seen the annual report of that company. I shall inquire of my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, whether he will study that report and advise the honourable senator whether or not that company is in breach of the resolutions of the United Nations. I shall ask my colleague also whether he will provide for the honourable senator and the Senate the criteria by which no breach is judged to have been committed in the whole range of matters.

page 1219

QUESTION

AIR POLLUTION (STATIONARY SOURCES) ORDINANCE

Senator KNIGHT:

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, refers to the fact that the Minister for the Capital Territory recently referred to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly a proposed Air Pollution (Stationary Sources) Ordinance to deal in particular with industrial sources of air pollution. In this context can the Minister say whether the Minister for the Capital Territory has considered the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, made in its report on Canberra City Wastes which was tabled in the Senate last December, that controls on domestic incineration should be dealt with in such legislation? If consideration has been given to that recommendation, can the Minister indicate why it is not dealt with in the proposed legislation? If it has not been considered, can the Minister say why and indicate when that will be done?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The issues raised in the report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory in relation to domestic incineration were fully considered in the preparation of the Air Pollution (Stationary Sources) Ordinance. I understand that it would be particularly difficult to apply the very stringent and detailed sampling and analytical procedures specified in the proposed legislation to the usual kinds of domestic incineration which, as the honourable senator would know, entail the use of often very much improvised devices. However, the Ordinance will empower the Minister to prohibit open fires and the burning of refuse where meteorological conditions would cause an adverse environmental impact. Prohibition of that kind would have effect for such periods as is specified in the Minister’s notice. I understand that that is the latest situation in relation to the question raised by the honourable senator.

page 1219

QUESTION

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I wish to ask a question of the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral, believing that the question has some legal connotations. I ask the Minister: Can an alteration to the Constitution have retrospective effect? I am concerned about the position of Senator Lewis from Victoria who was appointed for a period up to the next Federal election in accordance with the Constitution as it then was. As there has been a change to the Constitution, will that alter the period of the appointment of Senator Lewis to the Senate? If that change to the Constitution can be made retrospective in relation to the appointment of a senator, why cannot a constitutional alteration have retrospectivity in relation to the present judges of the High Court of Australia?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I would be a very bold man if I were to give legal opinions from my place in the Senate, even if I were allowed to do so. However, I will be so bold as to answer the last part of the honourable senator’s question. The reason why the constitutional amendment so satisfactorily passed by the electorate in relation to the retiring ages of judges does not apply to the present members of the High Court is that it does not purport to do so. It clearly does not provide for that. As to the other question, I understand that it has been assumed that the amendments will affect the situation as it now stands. The honourable senator asks whether the relevant constitutional amendment will apply to the period for which Senator Lewis has been appointed to the Senate. I shall refer that matter to the Attorney-General for his consideration.

page 1219

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator RYAN:

– I address my question to the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Employment Service pays the unemployment benefit to the husband of a claimant if the claimant is a married woman instead of to the claimant herself? If this is the case, can the Minister indicate whether she approves of this discriminatory practice and, if not, what steps she will take to have the policy changed to one which does not discriminate against claimants on the basis of sex or marital status?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-I am asked a question about the Commonwealth Employment Service paying unemployment benefit. It is the Department of Social Security which actually pays unemployment benefit. The work testing of claimants is arranged through the Commonwealth Employment Service. As far as 1 understand the position, a claimant is issued a cheque in his or her name but there is an eligibility test related to the family income. If that does not satisfactorily answer the matter raised I will have a look at the question in detail to see whether there is further information which I can provide. I am unaware of any practice whereby a claimant would have a cheque paid to any other person on his or her behalf. I state again that the eligibility for unemployment benefit is tested on an income of both husband and wife.

page 1220

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF: OIL DRILLING

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister for Science aware that the Queensland Minister for Mines, Mr Camm, has recently indicated that he favours oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef? As well, is the Minister aware that Mr Camm has also claimed that an interim investigation has shown that there would be no danger to the reef from oil exploration and drilling? Is the Minister able to inform the Senate of the investigation to which Mr Camm has referred? Was the Commonwealth involved in the investigation and what are the Commonwealth’s intentions in respect of drilling on the reef?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– If I recall the whole of the question correctly, my answers are as follows: Yes, yes, no, yes. In relation to the last question, I will seek that information from the appropriate Minister who is, I think, the Minister for National Resources.

page 1220

QUESTION

REFERENDUMS

Senator BUTTON:

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to Press reports in which Senator Martin is alleged to have said that the Cabinet lied about the likely effect of one of the referendum proposals. I ask the Minister: Is that allegation in relation to this particular matter correct? Did the Cabinet lie?

Senator Withers:

– About what matter?

Senator BUTTON:

-The likely effect of the referendum concerning simultaneous elections.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-That was all last week. This is this week.

page 1220

QUESTION

AERIAL BAITING

Senator MULVIHILL:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory. In view of the general discontinuance by State governments of 1080 aerial baiting, is it true that the Northern Territory contemplates the introduction of 1080 aerial baiting in various areas?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The control of pest animals by the use of 1080 is seen by some people to be cruel and undesirable. I recognise the thoughts of the honourable senator in relation to this matter. My understanding is that excessive numbers of dingoes in pastoral areas in the Northern Territory have required some assessment of what method should be used to control them. I understand that if 1080 is used carefully it is a relatively selective poison. It will control mainly dogs, and losses of other wildlife can be minimised by its use. At the present time 1080 is not widely used in the Northern Territory. It is currently proposed to undertake a control program of dingo baiting by the use of 1080 on a restricted basis on some cattle stations. The whole operation is being supervised by the responsible Government officers. The decision to proceed with this control was apparently taken by the responsible Executive Member for the Northern Territory, and that followed discussion and consultation with the Chief Inspector of Wildlife in the Northern Territory.

page 1220

QUESTION

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. On 10 March I asked a question regarding the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee as to when an election was to be held to replace Mr David Anderson who resigned on 28 February and when the next meeting of the NACC was to be held. To date I have received no reply. As to this date no by-election has been held to replace Mr Anderson and now more than 12 months have elapsed since the last meeting of the NACC, can the Minister give me some information on this matter?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have no information on this matter that I can give the honourable senator. I shall refer it again to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to find out what has been decided with regard to elections for the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee and to obtain such other information as I can.

page 1220

QUESTION

RADIO AUSTRALIA

Senator ROBERTSON:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications: Is it a fact that Mr Green, the Secretary of the Postal and Telecommunications Department, carried out an inspection of the Radio Australia base situated on Cox Peninsula in the week commencing 16 May ? If this is a fact, will the Minister please advise: Firstly, the purpose of this inspection; secondly, whether the Government proposes to repair the facilities on the base which have been out of action since Cyclone Tracy; and, thirdly, whether the Government now proposes to install the 2 radio transmitters which have been stored in Adelaide since before the cyclone? I remind the Minister that the installation of these transmitters would bring Australian Broadcasting Commission broadcasts to all sections of the Top End which are now denied this service. I have previously stressed the value of this service not only for educational purposes and entertainment but also as part of an early warning system in case of cyclones.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware whether Mr Green made a tour of Cox Peninsula during the week commencing, I think, 16 May nor, therefore, am I aware of the matters contained in the subsequent questions asked by the honourable senator. I shall seek the comment of the responsible Minister on each of the points raised in the question.

page 1221

QUESTION

SUPPORTING MOTHERS BENEFIT

Senator GRIMES:

-I ask the Minister for Social Security: Is it a fact that the Government is seeking to pass to the States the payment of the supporting mothers benefit? Has the Minister requested from the Attorney-General an opinion on the legal status of the supporting mothers benefit? If so, has this been done for the purpose of having the payment of this benefit by the Federal Government declared illegal with the intention of passing it back to the States?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– There is no accuracy in any of the matters that have been raised in the honourable senator’s question. I do not have under consideration any proposal to refer the supporting mothers benefit to the States. It would be understood that under existing arrangements the States are involved in payments during the first 6 months. I have nothing under consideration to change this nor, to my knowledge, has a legal opinion been requested. It certainly has not been requested from the AttorneyGeneral by me. I can only say that none of the matters that have been raised has any basis in fact. Whatever information has been provided to the honourable senator to require him to raise these matters is outside my knowledge. Such a proposal is not under consideration by the Government.

page 1221

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE: BROADCASTING LICENCE

Senator BUTTON:

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications whether a decision has been made to grant an FM radio licence to the University of Melbourne and the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology? Further, what criteria were used for granting that licence if it has been granted? In what respect do the criteria differ from the criteria which are being applied to the Macquarie University and the Sydney Technical College?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I do have some information concerning the issue of a broadcast station licence to the University of Melbourne. I am advised that in a submission to the relevant Minister dated 15 March 1976 a group representing the University of Melbourne and the Melbourne State College applied for a licence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 to establish and operate an FM radio broadcasting station. This application for a licence was in addition to the 12 experimental licences for educational institutions offered by the previous Labor Government and which have now been issued. Approval has been given in principle to the issue of an experimental licence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, subject to the determination of operating conditions of the experiment and to the confirmation of the Minister’s power to grant this licence under this Act and related legislation. Advice is awaited from the Postal and Telecommunications Department and from the Attorney-General’s Department with regard to these matters. If the Minister proceeds with the granting of this licence, the licence period will be to 31 December 1977 only. I have no information with regard to the remainder of the honourable senator’s question which relates to the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. I shall seek that information. I am not advised whether the criteria were different from those laid down for other institutions. My instinct is that the licence for the University of Melbourne would be issued on similar grounds to those for other institutions such as the Australian National University.

page 1221

QUESTION

BRISBANE FINE MUSIC GROUP: BROADCASTING LICENCE

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. If the situation is as the Minister has just stated in reply to the previous question, what is the position concerning the fine music group in Brisbane? Why has there been a continuing delay in the issue of that licence. If it is possible to give a licence to the University of Melbourne on the conditions just stated by the Minister, why has the Brisbane group been denied a licence for so long?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Information regarding the fine music group is not immediately available to me. I shall seek that information for the honourable senator.

page 1222

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE: POLICE OFFICERS

The PRESIDENT:

– On 5 May last, Senator Coleman asked me a question without notice relating to facilities provided for the police officers who maintain an external guard on Parliament House. I am informed by the National Capital Development Commission that 4 police guard boxes of a standard design are in store at Fyshwick. These were constructed with a view to their installation at Parliament House but would be available for installation at other sites. The question whether the existing security cover is to be continued or whether some other system is to be used is currently under consideration. The installation of police guard boxes will depend on the decision taken in this regard. The National Capital Development Commission advises that the cost of manufacture and installation of the boxes is expected to be of the order of $25,000. If it is decided to continue with the existing foot patrol, appropriate arrangements for the protection of these men from the elements will be taken. Alternative methods of maintaining surveillance of the exterior of the building are currently under consideration.

page 1222

QUESTION

DARWIN CYCLONE TRACY RELIEF TRUST FUND

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-During question time, Senator Keeffe asked a question relating to the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund. The final report of that Fund has not been presented. I am informed that the Minister for the Northern Territory still has to hold meetings with the members of the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund before it is wound up. Therefore, it will be some time before a final report is produced and possibly not during this session. The honourable senator will recall that monthly reports have been tabled. On 5 May this year, before the Parliament went into recess, I tabled reports for the months of October, November and December last year and for the months of January, February, March and April this year.

page 1222

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Tertiary Education Commission Bill 1977.

Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill 1 977.

Australian Development Assistance Agency (Repeal) Bill 1977.

Commonwealth Bureau of Roads (Repeal) Bill 1977.

Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Bill 1977.

Bed Sheeting Bounty Bill 1977.

Agricultural Tractors Bounty Amendment Bill 1 977.

Insurance Amendment Bill 1977.

Life Insurance Amendment Bill 1977.

States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Amendment Bill 1977.

New Zealand Re-Exports (Repeal) Bill 1977.

page 1222

COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL ESTABLISHMENTS

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the interim report of the Committee on Official Establishments April 1977 together with a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) relating to this matter.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave- I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1222

AUSTRALIAN DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AGENCY

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– Pursuant to section 30 of the Australian Development Assistance Agency Act 1974 I present the annual report of the Australian Development Assistance Agency for the year ended 30 June 1 976.

page 1222

AUSTRALIAN DELEGATION TO THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Australian delegation to the thirtyfirst session of the United Nations General Assembly held in New York during the period 22 September 1976 to 22 December 1976 together with a statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) in the other place.

page 1222

INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the text of a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on intelligence and security services together with the third report of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Securityabridged findings and recommendations- April 1977.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave- I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1223

FISHING INDUSTRY ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Fishing Industry Act 1956 I present the twentieth annual report on the operation of that Act during the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 1223

EDUCATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 9 of the Education Research Act 1970 I present the sixth annual report of the Education Research and Development Committee 1975-76. Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement relating to this report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator CARRICK:

– This report contains the first major statement on policy and procedure since the appointment of a full time Chairman, and demonstrates both the expanding and the consolidating nature of ERDC activities. It differs from earlier reports in that it contains a large bibliographic section detailing publications and materials arising from research and development projects funded since the Committee’s inception in 1970. This list, which is to be updated in each forthcoming annual report, provides a measure of the scope and emphasis of some aspects of the Committee’s activities. A wide variety of fields, approaches and presentation of findings will be evident. The report also contains indications of the Committee’s efforts to ensure that research is co-ordinated and evaluated and results are effectively disseminated. Programs for the training of research workers are described. The Committee, through its activities as outlined in this report, justifies my confidence that it is making a significant contribution towards improving education in Australia.

The Research Branch of my Department and the National Committee on Social Science Teaching have also funded programs under the

Education Research Act. Details of these activities will be included, and tabled, in the annual reports of the Department and of the Curriculum Development Centre.

page 1223

AUSTRALIAN ARBITRATION INSPECTORATE

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– Pursuant to section 125 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, 1 present the report of the Australian Arbitration Inspectorate for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 1223

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I present for the information of honourable senators the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on Assistance for the Consumption of Phosphatic Fertilisers 30 October 1976.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1223

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND COMMERCE

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

– I present the first report from the Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce on its inquiry into the effects of currency alterations and changes to manufacturing industry protection on employment and inflation, including the effects on prices of manufactured goods.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 1223

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-I present the final report and the transcript of evidence from the Standing Committee on Science and the Environment on its inquiry into the impact on the Australian environment of the current woodchip industry program.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator JESSOP:

-I seek leave to move that the Senate take note of the report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator JESSOP:

-I move:

The Senate, on 28 November 1974, resolved that the matter of the impact on the Australian environment of the current woodchip industry program be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Environment. This Committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Keeffe, embarked upon an investigation of the reference during the Autumn session of 1975. Considerable progress had been made, including 2 public hearings, when the inquiry was brought to a halt by the dissolution of the Parliament in November that year. On 2 March 1976 the Standing Committee on Science and the Environment was created and on 25 March the Senate resolved that the matter of the environmental impact of the woodchip industry be referred to the new Committee. As Chairman of the new Committee I was fortunate in having as fellow committee members, 3 senators who had served on the former Social Environment Committee and who accordingly brought a large measure of continuity to the ongoing inquiry. These were Senators Mulvihill, Melzer and Bonner. I am grateful also to the other 2 members of the Committee, Senators Townley and Colston, for their valuable contribution to the work of the Committee.

The Committee has interpreted its term of reference as covering all woodchipping programs in progress in Australia or under current consideration for establishment. Such programs cover production for export and for the domestic market. In conformity with its terms of reference, the Committee concentrated its attention on the immediate environmental impact of woodchip programs, that is to say, the impact on soil, air and water and on forest fauna and flora. The impact on the social environment has received consideration also. During the inquiry evidence was tendered on many other related subjects, such as pulp mill effluent, pine plantings, population growth and the economics of the timber industry. Whilst these matters are of interest to the Committee, they are not touched upon in the report except insofar as may be necessary for proper understanding of the matters falling within the scope of the inquiry. The final report presented today elaborates and carries forward the conclusions and recommendations of the interim report tabled on 9 December 1976. It also sets out in detail the evidence from which the conclusions and recommendations are drawn.

Concern for the environmental consequences of the woodchip industry was evident in 1971 when the first shipment of woodchips to Japan was made from Eden in New South Wales. Signs of public disquiet increased following extension of the woodchip export industry into other States, with strong criticism being directed towards the industry and the various State forestry services.

The industry’s critics, no less than its defenders, include many reputable persons well qualified to speak on the sometimes highly technical matters brought forward. Even so, formulation of an objective opinion on the environmental aspects of the industry is hampered by a general lack of researched knowledge on the nature of Australian forests, their soils, streams, fauna and flora. Meaningful dialogue on the issue has in consequence become increasingly difficult, with protagonists and antagonists tending to become entrenched in their respective positions and with much of the debate characterised by assertion and emotion rather than factually supported rational argument. The Committee would like to think that through the very process of conducting an inquiry at this juncture, the Senate has gone some way towards acting as a catalyst to improve the climate for mutually beneficial dialogue between the parties in the woodchip controversy.

The conclusions and recommendations set out in the report have been made following many inspections and public hearings. I have been impressed with the bipartisan approach of my colleagues and their constructive attitudes to this most interesting if sometimes controversial subject. The general public is often unaware of this aspect of senators’ work which is genuinely applied to the distillation of evidence in order to arrive at conclusions which are of benefit to the community at large.

The Committee has drawn a large number of conclusions from the evidence which was presented. In fact there are no less than 109 conclusions. There are 21 recommendations to the Federal Government and 27 proposals for the attention of State governments. This recognises our limitations in making strong recommendations in this regard.

The most significant of these conclusions were put before the Senate at the tabling of the interim report last December. To recapitulate, the Committee concludes that whilst a number of environmental problems exist, curtailment of the woodchip industry program is not warranted on environmental grounds at this time. Clearfelling for woodchips poses a number of threats to the environment. Some of these are fully recognised and can be acceptably minimised by application of appropriate management techniques. Other environmental threats, notably those relating to soil nutrients, wildlife preservation, and conservation of genetic characteristics, are less well understood and require further research to identify their true nature and magnitude and to determine ways to counter them effectively.

Because of the abovementioned environmental threats, any indiscriminate extension of clearfelling for woodchips outside the boundaries of present concession and licence areas would be viewed with concern. The Committee is not satisfied the forestry authorities are doing all that could reasonably be expected in the way of ensuring that management prescriptions for protection of the environment are being correctly implemented in the forest. It considers that this poor observance is in part a result of the structure, traditional attitudes and limited resources of the forest industry and forestry authorities. The Committee is particularly concerned at the relative lack of professional and research expertise in the harvesting sector of the industry. Schemes to make economic use of sawmill waste and silvicultural residues including thinnings from existing sawlog operations have environmental as well as economic benefits. Approval of any such schemes should however incorporate safeguards to ensure that the material chipped is restricted to genuine wastes and residues and that additional trees are not felled merely to maintain or increase chip supplies.

The Committee is concerned at the potential for environmental damage represented by the present absence of control over felling operations in private forests. It is also disturbed at the small area of private forest to which positive regeneration measures are applied. In Tasmania in particular, a serious problem for the future can be discerned unless appropriate corrective action is taken soon. The total environmental impact of woodchip operations cannot be fully assessed at this time because of the large number of inadequately researched factors to be taken into account. Empirical observations coupled with experience and some research tend to indicate that, in the short term, present operations in relatively restricted areas are acceptable provided environmental prescriptions are observed. However, much less confidence is felt with respect to long term effects. The Committee accordingly considers that no new projects involving the clearfelling of forests specifically for woodchips should be started until such time as the doubts concerning long term effects on the environment can be resolved.

The inquiry has highlighted for the Committee the inadequate recognition given by planning authorities to the full range of factors needed to ensure adequate conservation of Australian fauna and flora in parks and reserves. Detailed examination of these factors is required in the context of the need to set aside areas of forest for wilderness, intensive forestry, and a complete range of community uses. This entails effective multi-disciplinary land use planning on a national scale. The Committee has made a number of recommendations effective in the Federal sphere springing from these and other conclusions. Among other things it recommends that no export licences be issued to new woodchip projects, other than those intending to use only waste from genuine sawlog operations, until such time as the environmental problems outlined in the report are resolved. It further recommends that renewal of existing export licences or requests for an increase in quantities to be exported be conditional upon meeting various criteria, including effective implementation of environmental protection measures, assurance of adequate regeneration, and conservation of soil nutrients.

The Committee recommends the setting up of a working group to determine research needs and priorities, and proposes appropriate research programs together with means for their support. Other recommendations embrace such matters as a review of forest royalty rate systems, redefinition of the functions of the Australian Forestry Council, and formulation of a national land-use policy with particular reference to the development of adequate systems of parks and reserves for the conservation of fauna and flora.

In presenting this report, the Committee fully recognises that its formal recommendations are necessarily limited to matters falling within the Federal sphere. Neverthless, many of the problems it surveys can be tackled effectively only by State governments or, in some instances, by the Australian timber industry itself. The Committee has accordingly taken the liberty, at various points in the report, of advocating action within the ambit of State instrumentalities or the timber industry. That advocacy covers matters such as forest management, land-use policy, and national parks and reserves.

Despite the existence of conflicting views put forward in evidence, the Committee believes that most of the participants in the woodchip debate share the same fundamental aim, namely to ensure wise planning and management in the use of Australia’s land resources for present and future generations. The increasing concern of the community for this aim, particularly with respect to forests, is reflected in the number of symposia and inquiries held in recent years on this theme.

The Committee hopes that its conclusions and recommendations, taken in conjunction with those of other inquiries will help point the way to some fertile ground from which will spring decisions and actions in the best interests of the community.

It would be remiss of me if I did not mention the stirling support that the Committee received from its secretariat. Mr Peter Dawe served the Committee beyond the call of duty. He even offered his services during holiday periods and at weekends. He is available when the Committee requires his services. The same compliment must be paid to Hazel Church and Andrew Snedden. All of them participated in organising inspections, public hearings, transport and accommodation for the Committee. This support was most invaluable to our function. Last but not least, I must pay a very sincere tribute to our stenographer Leonie Petrie who was put to a great deal of work in recent times typing the report. As honourable senators can see, it is in excess of 400 pages. I must pay a very sincere tribute to her for her efforts in support of the Committee’s activities. I commend the report to honourable senators.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– It gives me a good deal of pleasure to endorse the remarks of the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Science and the Environment. I commence where he ended. We had a very fine engine-room crew. All the people whom he named made the Committee a very effective unit. If one looks objectively at this report one finds a challenge to many people to keep faith with the principles underlying all the evidence that was given before us. When we commenced we had a fair idea of the polarisation of the protagonists of development and those from the conservation wings of the community. Each member of the Committee was fairly probing in his questioning. We gained a reputation. Any person who made an assertion had to face up to some fairly solid questioning to prove the point that he was trying to get across. I think that was extremely fair. It did not matter from what quarter it came. Everybody had to face this probing. As a result, the report is detailed.

I suppose the first challenge is to the Australian Government but, more so, to the State governments. Most committee members, including myself, felt that the land management programs suggested in every State provided a reasonable proportion of land for normal forestry requirements while at the same time providing reasonable wildlife national park habitats. As far as I can see, most States are honouring those agreements. It would be regrettable if they were not kept. At this stage I am prepared to say that possibly Committee members will have to take to the public forum in their own States to see that all they seek is achieved. I do not say that from any narrow Party point of view because I notice that some of the recommendations dealing with the Eden region- the part dealing with the expansion of the Nadgee River and Merrica River areas- has been met by the New South Wales Government but some has not. That is something which I think all other governments should consider. The recommendations have to be adopted in full.

We reached a milestone when we adopted the dictum: The polluter pays. We advanced the idea that people who made a profit out of forestry products should pay. The principle applies in the grazing industry where there are levies for research. Shippers pay so much per tonne towards research on oil pollution clean-up. It is only right as a principle, as the Committee suggested, that there should be some form of levy to provide adequate research by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The evidence that the CSIRO gave on wood technology and wildlife habitation stressed to the Committee the vital role that CSIRO officers perform. The CSIRO cannot expect to operate on a shoestring. I hope the Commonwealth Government gives early attention to this matter.

There are a few other dangers. If there is a regenerated forest and it is not touched for 50 to 60 years, one could argue that it has multipurpose uses such as tourism and a haven for wildlife. We saw evidence in Tasmania of technological advances in the case of the Tasmanian blue gum. There was abnormal growth indicating that the forest will reach its yield zenith much earlier than forecast. There could be a temptation to come back to that forest in 25 years or less, not 50 years. This is an area in which there needs to be continuous vigilance.

One other point is very important. I mentioned the polarisation of different elements in the community. We have suggested advisory councils. When people meet regularly and there is an early indication of what is contemplated a better appreciation of other people’s ideas results. This Committee is not solely responsible for this attitude. We were lucky that we were following in the footsteps of the United States Senate, which has advocated advisory councils in the interests of better relations between the United States forestry service, conservation groups and the public in general. If we can get unanimity of purpose we will save much of our present environment and avoid mistakes that were made notably at Eden in the early years of the woodchip industry.

I find it satisfying that the new breed of forestry students of both sexes at the Australian National University is perhaps much more receptive to new ideas than the older generation. These people would be more receptive to some of the matters which Senator Jessop mentioned. I do not wish to pre-empt the role of Victorian senators, particularly Senator Melzer, but to show that I am approaching matters on a national angle I wish to make an appeal concerning an area in Victoria. The Committee was impressed by certain Gippsland forests of prime timber that were regenerated after the disastrous 1 939 fires. We know that the Gippsland area is the habitat of the Leadbeater possum. Notwithstanding a period of budget austerity I hope that with the aid of the endangered species legislation we will be able to preserve the enclave for that species. The Committee was a very happy one. As I told other members of the Committee this morning, the nicest compliment I could pay them is to say that the Committee functioned as efficiently as the famous Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. Mr President, I ask for leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1227

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

-On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts I present its one hundred and sixtythird report. I seek leave to make a statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator MESSNER:

– As honourable senators are aware, after the close of each financial year the Treasurer submits to the Parliament for its consideration and approval a statement of expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer showing allocations to heads of expenditure made by him from the advance under section 36a of the Audit Act. The Committee carries out the parliamentary scrutiny of this past expenditure by obtaining explanations from departments for each item of expenditure finally charged to the advance and selecting the more notable of these for public inquiry. The one hundred and sixty-third report relates specifically to evidence taken in connection with items of expenditure from the advance to the Treasurer in 1975-76.

In chapter 1 of the report the Committee has stated that, in examining expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer, it has sought to ascertain whether expenditure from the advance has been confined to urgent and unforeseeable requirements for which provision could not have been made in the original and additional estimates. The Committee has also sought to ascertain whether the departments concerned in the inquiry have maintained efficient administration in the expenditure of funds under the items selected for public inquiry. As the report shows, there were cases in relation to the departments of Industry and Commerce, the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Social Security where expenditure from the advance to the Treasurer was confined to urgent and unforeseeable requirements for which provision could not have been made in the Appropriation Acts. In other cases, however, there was evidence of clerical errors, inefficient estimating procedures, and delays which caused expenditure to be charged to the advance when provision should properly have been made in the Additional Estimates. For example, in the transfer of responsibilities for the Australian Capital Territory Police from the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs to the Department of the Capital Territory a number of accounts received and registered in the Department of the Capital Territory were inexplicably overlooked when additional estimates were being prepared. Another example occurred in the Department of Education where it failed to consider the financial and accounting implications of the introduction of a new pay cycle for beneficiaries under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme. Attention has been drawn to these and other similar inadequacies where they have been discovered.

In the report the Committee has emphasised the serious light in which it viewed the action of the Department of Administrative Services in charging expenditure relating to the purchase of Governor Macquarie ‘s sword and dirk to the wrong appropriation. When it drew a cheque for the purchase against an appropriation that had not been approved by the Parliament for that purpose, the Department knowingly contravened a very important principle embodied in section 83 of the Constitution which states that:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation made by law.

The Committee also believes that when the cheque was drawn, section 34 (3) of the Audit Act 1901 was breached in that the proposed expenditure was not being charged to the correct head of expenditure. The Committee was concerned that departmental witnesses did not seem to be fully aware of the serious nature of the Department’s illegal actions. The Committee has directed the attention of all departments to the Treasurer’s letter of 2 June 1976 to all Ministers on the subject of delays in the payment of accounts and to Treasury Circular 1976/15 of 8 June 1976 which referred to specific paragraphs of the Committee’s one hundred and fifty-first report which dealt with the same subject. Despite the Treasurer’s letter the Committee was concerned that it is still receiving evidence of delays in the payment of accounts by some government departments. The Committee was dissatisfied with the quality of the submissions presented by the departments of Aboriginal Affairs and the Attorney-General and has invited the specific attention of all departments to the notes relating to evidence that accompany requests for submissions, which clearly state that the committee expects that:

Written submissions and explanations should be carefully prepared and thoroughly checked for adequacy and accuracy of detail and absence of ambiguity.

The Committee has also pointed out that Treasury Circular 1976/10 dated 11 May 1976 also directs the attention of departments to the necessity for evidence tendered to be of the highest quality. I commend the report to honourable senators.

page 1228

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE BASE, POINT COOK, VICTORIA

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

-Mr President, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Act 1964 I present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Royal Australian Air Force Base, Point Cook, Victoria.

page 1228

ALLEGATIONS OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ACTIVITY IN AUSTRALIA

Ministerial Statement

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I seek leave to make a statement on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) concerning allegations of Central Intelligence Agency activity in Australia.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

-I make this statement on behalf of the Prime Minister and wherever the personal pronoun is used it is to be taken as referring to the Prime Minister and not to me. The statement reads: We have seen over the last 4 weeks efforts to expose some of Australia’s most closely held secrets and to publicise allegations based on hearsay or worse, to the embarrassment of Australia’s relations with the United States, our closest ally. Accordingly, I believe it is important that I make a statement on these matters and attempt to put them in a proper perspective. Any public discussion which disregards Australia’s interest is of serious concern to the Government. Those who are opposed to our alliance with the United States have naturally sought to exploit this issue for their own purposes. The situation I have described has been precipitated by the allegations of one Christopher Boyce, a 23-year-old communications clerk, who was on trial in California and has since been convicted of selling United States secrets to the Soviet Union. His allegations about Central Intelligence Agency activities in Australia were an attempt to rationalise his crimes. The Government has examined relevant parts of the transcript of the Boyce trial which in fact add little or nothing to the allegations which have already appeared in the media. I shall arrange for a copy of this transcript to be placed in the Parliamentary Library for the information of honourable senators.

We have since seen some former members of the CIA making, for their own motives, hearsay allegations, some of which would appear to come within the ambit of what is known as disinformation’ or the attempt to gain political ends through false and misleading information. It has been the Government’s long standing policy to avoid comment on matters involving intelligence and security. There are good reasons for this policy in that the mere act of denying specific allegations can often provide important leads and be damaging to our and our allies’ national security. I do not therefore intend to deal with specific allegations which have been made. As pan of our defence relationship with the United States, there have grown up extensive arrangements for exchanging information and views with a wide range of United States Government agencies including those in the intelligence and security field. Under these arrangements officers from United States agencies are declared to the Australian authorities and work with various Australian agencies. Of course, Ministers with relevant responsibilities know who they are. Australian officers are engaged in similar declared capacities in Washington. These arrangements are long standing and have been, and still are, of great value to Australia. They are an important aspect of the close and intimate relationship which we have with the United States. Through these arrangements we have access to and exchange valuable information with the United States on a wide range of international strategic developments as well as security and intelligence matterssuch as espionage and international terrorism to name 2 examples- which contribute in the broadest terms to the protection of Australia and the Australian community.

There is also a long established convention that close allies do not conduct covert activities within each other’s territories. Such activities are not necessary between friends. In this connection I wish to reassure the nation that I have carefully reviewed the activities of the United States Government in Australia and have found them to be fully consistent with the interests and policies of the Australian Government and people. I am satisfied with the assurances I have received from elements of my own Government and from President Carter personally through his Ambassador that neither the United States Government not its representatives are involved in improper or inappropriate activities here. Our joint activities with them are important to the national security of both countries. Furthermore, we are most happy with the results we are obtaining from these activities.

I appreciate that some honourable gentlemen opposite enjoy deceiving themselves with conspiracy theories, and would like to believe that it was the CIA rather than the Australian electorate which put them out of office. Such views are, however, not merely politically self-serving but naive. They will also be aware that, in recent times, the activities of the CIA, unlike most other foreign intelligence services, have been kept under close scrutiny by the United States Congress; and that allegations of improper activity will be investigated as a matter of routine by the Congress.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) has called for a royal commission into the allegations which have been made. I believe that such an inquiry is totally unnecessary. I note that the Leader, when Prime Minister, sought and was advised of the names of representatives of United States intelligence agencies then in Australia. He was apparently then satisfied with the information he received because after detailed inquiry he took no further action in relation to it.

The Royal Commissioner on Security and Intelligence, Mr Justice Hope, who was appointed by the Leader of the Opposition in August 1974, has recently completed a most extensive series of investigations and reports on all aspects of Australian intelligence and security. His investigations included the activities of foreign intelligence services in Australia. There is nothing in the Royal Commissioner’s reports which give any substance to the allegations relating to CIA activity which have occupied so much attention over the last 4 weeks. Mr Justice Hope has made recommendations to increase the effectiveness of our internal security arrangements. These concern the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in particular and are aimed at ensuring that it will be better equipped in the future to meet its responsibilities for investigating and providing intelligence about threats to the internal security of the nation. Mr Justice Hope’s recommendations have already been the subject of detailed study and I shall be making a statement to the House after my return from the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in London about the Government’s decisions.

As I have already said in this House, I look to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to provide timely advice on all matters which might affect the security of this country, including improper activities by any foreign intelligence service in Australia. It is my belief that the Director-General of ASIO, Mr Justice Woodward, carries out this responsibility creditably and faithfully. Similarly, the Leader of the Opposition, whose Government appointed Mr Justice Woodward, has recently re-affirmed in the House his confidence in the DirectorGeneral. Improper activities by the representatives in Australia of any foreign government have in the past and would in the future be regarded just as seriously by my Government as they have been by previous Australian Governments. I present the following paper:

Allegations of Central Intelligence Agency Activity in Australia- Ministerial Statement, 24 May 1977.

I move:

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– It would not be possible to have a detailed or lengthy debate on the statement which the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) has just made immediately following the presentation of that statement. I believe that the Leader of the Government would wish the statement to be debated at length some time when it is possible to do so. For that reason I shall confine my remarks.

The statement appears to be something of a mixture. There are parts of it with which one could take issue; there are other parts which I, for one, confess that I am glad to see. I refer especially to the last paragraph of the statement in which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) gives an assurance concerning improper activities by the representatives in Australia of any foreign government. They would be regarded just as seriously by this Government as they would have been by previous Australian governments. I do not think that is an issue on which one should attempt to score political points; it is too serious. I do not suggest, nor do I believe, that the Government, or any Australian government, would allow any improper activities which would in any way infringe our sovereign rights to take place in this country by the representatives of any other nation. We would be foolish individually as political parties and collectively as a Parliament if we were to permit that.

For that reason I take some exception to one or two comments which are made. I refer, for example, to the references to persons sitting opposite wanting to make political capital out of this issue and to one other reference in the statement about people who are opposed to our alliance with the United States seeking to exploit the issue for their own purposes. I do not believe that a statement made by a Prime Minister on this subject ought to contain those remarks.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) has called for a royal commission into these matters. I think that is understandable in the light of references that have been made both here and overseas to events which are alleged to have taken place in this country over the last year or two. I find nothing improper with a former Prime Minister seeking to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of those allegations. If the position were reversed and the present Prime Minister was seeking in similar circumstances to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of such allegations I would support him because it would be the proper thing to do. I do not accept any imputations of political motives on the part of the Opposition or, much less, the Leader of the Opposition in respect of his call for a royal commission.

The Opposition believes- we have made this quite clear in statements issued over the last few days- that we deplore espionage activities in this country, by any foreign nation and we ought not to tolerate such activities. We accept, as we did ourselves in government, that perhaps with certain countries we have arrangements, as spelt out in this statement, for exchanging information and views over a wide range of matters. It is the prerogative of any government to have those arrangements with a foreign power if it so desires. Our concern is with any activities that have taken place which are outside those arrangements. It does not matter what our politics are, we ought to make sure that that does not happen, that we do not tolerate it under any circumstances with any foreign power. I am glad to see that this statement gives assurances by the Prime Minister that he also will not tolerate it and that the Government will not tolerate it. I am sure that the Australian people will be heartened by the fact that the Prime Minister has given such a clear undertaking on behalf of the Parliament. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1230

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

1 ) That, unless otherwise ordered, the days and times of meeting of the Senate for the remainder of this period of sittings be as follows:

Tuesday, 24 May-2.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.

Wednesday, 25 May-2.15 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.

Thursday, 26 May- 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2.15 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 1 1 .00 p.m.

Friday, 27 May-10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2.15 p.m. to 5.00 p.m.

Monday, 30 May-2.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.

Tuesday 31 May-2.15 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.

Wednesday, 1 June- 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2.15 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 1 1.00 p.m.

Thursday, 2 June-10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2.15 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 1 1 .00 p.m.

Friday, 3 June-10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2.15 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 1 1 .00 p.m.

That Government Business take precedence of General Business on Thursdays.

That the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at the terminating time each day.

page 1231

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian National Railways Act 1917. The main provisions of the Bill are necessary to enable the finalisation of the transfers of the South Australian non-metropolitan and Tasmanian railway systems to the Commonwealth. The opportunity has also been taken to make some other amendments of a minor nature. Honourable senators will recall that the present Government, when in opposition, did not oppose the legislation to approve the rail transfer agreements with South Australia and Tasmania on the grounds they were agreements between sovereign governments. This was the correct course of action for us to take. But that does not mean we were happy with the arrangements made. In fact it is very clear that the Whitlam Government was taken to the cleaners, whilst the 2 State Premiers laughed all the way to the bank! We have stated however, that the Government will honour the agreements, and will complete the transfers at the earliest opportunity.

The 2 rail systems were transferred to the Australian National Railways Commission on 1 July 1975. The transfer Acts however provided for an interim’ period during which the rail systems would continue to be operated and administered by the State Authorities, on behalf of and subject to the direction of the ANR Commission. The purpose of the interim period was to enable the terms and conditions of employment that would be applied to all ANR employees to be determined, so that, the State railways employees could transfer to the Commonwealth. Discussions with the unions concerned have now been going on for nearly 2 years, and it is clearly time that the matter be finalised to enable the ANR Commission to manage the total system directly. Honourable senators need to be aware of the difficulties involved. For instance there are 24 unions and associations involved in the discussions, and 26 different awards covering State and Commonwealth employees. In the wages area alone there are about 600 different classifications, many of them unique to the railway service.

The main provisions of this Bill result from agreements already reached with the unions. Because of the urgency the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) has asked those involved in the discussions to co-operate to the fullest extent to enable the remaining unresolved matters to be finalised. The ANR Commission was established as a statutory authority to operate along commercial lines. This is important. Australia cannot afford inefficiency or a waste of resources in this very necessary mode of transport. Part of the justification for the transfers was that it would enable rationalisation between the systems leading to an increase in efficiency and a reduction in the deficits being incurred. The combined deficits of the 2 transferred systems amounted to $45m in 1976 and I do not underestimate the task that has been set the ANR Commission.

The Government has taken action already to assist the Commission in its task. Committees of inquiry were established under the Chairmanship of Dr Stewart Joy, Chief Manager, Planning and Marketing of the National Bank of Australasia, to inquire into and report on the Tasmanian rail system and the options available regarding the construction of a standard gauge link between Adelaide and the main east-west standard gauge railway. Reports on these 2 matters have been completed and released to the public. The Minister for Transport has invited the 2 State governments and the ANR Commission to comment on the reports and has given an undertaking that no decisions will be taken with respect to the report’s findings without careful and proper consideration of the various options and their implications.

Rail services must be provided to meet the needs of the States concerned at the least cost to the community and inquiries such as these undertaken by Dr Joy will assist the Government and the Commission to decide how this is to be achieved. The Minister for Transport has indicated to me that he is pleased with the constructive approach taken by his State counterparts towards overcoming the railways problems, and is confident that if the Government can continue to receive the co-operation of the States as well as that of the unions and employees, improvements in operation and the level of deficit will occur.

I now turn to the Bill itself. I have circulated an explanatory memorandum for the information of honourable senators but I will very briefly describe the purpose of the more important amendments in the order they appear in the Bill. Clause 5 removes the necessity for contracts where ANR receives in excess of $100,000 to be approved by the Minister, this having been inadvertently included in the last amendment to the Act. It is inconsistent with the commercial role of the Commission for the approval of the Minister for Transport to be required in this matter. The requirement for the Minister for Transport to approve leases of land exceeding 10 years has also been deleted as this matter is covered in the Lands Acquisition Act. Clause 6 removes the possibility of inconsistency between the setting of rates and charges under this Act and the provisions of the South Australian transfer act and agreement which provide that relative advantages in rates and charges that previously existed are to be retained. Clause 9 amplifies the application of the discipline appeal provisions that occur later in the Bill, and the making of determinations relating to misconduct. A provision has also been included to assist in the proving, in court proceedings, that determinations under section 46 (2) of the ANR Act were validly made and in force at the appropriate time.

Clauses 10, 14 and 19 concern the industrial jurisdiction that will apply to all employees of ANRC. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will replace the Public Service Arbitrator. These provisions are required to apply the jurisdiction of the Commission and include transitional provisions to simplify the change in jurisdiction. Clause 1 1 concerns superannuation. Section 5 1 currently provides that the Act does not authorise superannuation benefits otherwise than under the Superannuation Act 1922. It has been agreed with the South Australian Government that transferring employees will be permitted to remain in their State schemes if they wish, because some employees, particularly those close to retirement, would otherwise be disadvantaged. Transferring employees will have a once only option on the declared date to either remain in the State scheme or commence as new contributors in the Commonwealth scheme. The South Australian Government has enacted legislation to this effect. The same offer was made to the Tasmanian Government, and it is expected that Tasmanian legislation to give effect to this offer will be passed at the earliest apportunity The clause has been drafted on the basis that the same arrangements apply to employees in both States. Clause 12 relates to promotions and disciplinary appeal procedures that are to apply to all employees of ANR when the rail transfers are finalised. The major provisions concerning the protection of rights and functions of the Boards have been included in legislation. Other matters are to be included in regulations and by-laws.

Clause 13 repeals the section in the Act which provides for the retirement age of employees. It is proposed to deal with retiring age under the Commission’s power to make determinations relating to terms and conditions of service, provided for under clause 46 (2). This practice is consistent with that used by the Australian National Line and Trans Australia Airlines. Clause 18 ensures that by-laws, made by the Commission for the purpose of applying State legislation are validly made. This provision is required because uniform operating rules and provisions prescribing rates and charges may not be finalised by the ‘declared’ date under the rail transfer agreements and it will therefore be necessary for the relevant State provisions to remain in force until replaced. Other amendments are either of a minor nature, merely procedural or of a consequential nature. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1232

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS LEGISLATION

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion ( by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages of the passage through the Senate of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Amendment Bill 1977 and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Bill 1977 being put in one motion at each stage and consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

page 1232

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Readings

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speeches read as follows-

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Amendment Bill 1977

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act of 1975 gave effect to the recommendations of the Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee, the Kerr Committee, which reported in 1971. It was supported on both sides of the Parliament. The Bill now introduced is intended to make some changes in the structure of the Tribunal to enable it to operate more flexibly in dealing with a much wider range of matters than at present. The Tribunal came into operation on 1 July 1976. It has jurisdiction to review decisions under a number of Acts, some ordinances of the Australian Capital Territory and by-laws made by the Postal Commission and the Telecommunications Commission. Nevertheless, only 24 applications have been made to the Tribunal to 26 April last. Much of the legislation conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal is not of a kind that requires decisions to be made in a substantial number of cases. So far the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the welfare field. Plans are now well advanced, however, to enable appeals to be taken to the Tribunal under the Social Services Act. Appeals will also be provided under a large number of Australian Capital Territory ordinances. It has become apparent that the Tribunal should have a different structure if it is to be equipped to hear appeals on a wide range of matters without making excessive demands on the services of presidential members at a judicial level.

The central feature of the amendments is to be found in clause 12 of the Bill. At present, subject to any provision to the contrary contained in an enactment conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal, the Tribunal must be constituted by a presidential member and 2 non-presidential members. What is now proposed is that the Tribunal may be constituted in any of 4 ways; by a presidential and 2 non-presidential members, by a presidential member alone, by a senior nonpresidential member (a new class of member) and 2 other non-presidential members, or by a senior non-presidential member sitting alone.

Subject to any provision to the contrary in another enactment the President is to be empowered to decide how the Tribunal is to be constituted for a particular matter. The President when constituting a tribunal is to have regard to the degree of public importance or complexity of the matters to which the proceeding relates and to the status of the decision-maker whose decision is to be reviewed. What is intended is that decisions made at ministerial or very senior departmental level would ordinarily be reviewed by the Tribunal constituted by or including a presidential member. So too would a decision in the nature of a test case made at a lower level of government.

Of course, an appeal that begins as a straight forward matter may turn out to be a complex one or one of much public interest, or to involve difficult questions of statutory interpretation. The Bill therefore makes provisions whereby such a case, if it has been set down before a nonpresidential bench of the Tribunal, may be transferred to a presidential bench. These provisions are to be found in clauses 1 1 and 13 of the Bill. The amendments to be made to section 20 of the Act would empower the President to change the composition of a Tribunal where it has not commenced to hear a matter. Again this discretion will be exercisable by reference only to criteria of complexity and public importance of the matter and the status of the decision-maker.

Where the Tribunal has commenced a hearing the matter can be brought before a ‘higher level ‘ of the Tribunal under the proposed new section 2 1A which is inserted by clause 13. In such a case the change can be made only where a party makes an application for this purpose and the President concludes that the public importance of the matter warrants the application being granted. New section 21A also provides for the case where only part of a matter requires to be dealt with at a ‘higher level’ of the Tribunal. For example, where it is necessary to resolve a question of law, proceedings commenced before a non-presidential bench can be brought before a presidential bench for the purpose, and then remitted back to the non-presidential bench. Consequential upon the amendments referred to, section 45 of the Act is amended by clause 30 so that the Tribunal, when it does not include a presidential member, may not refer a question of aw to the Federal Court of Australia without the concurrence of the President. This clause reflects the view that matters should not go to the Court until the resources of the Tribunal have been exhausted.

The creation of the new grade of senior nonpresidential member has required changes to a number of other sections of the Act. Clause 4 amends section 6 of the Act to provide for the appointment of such a member. Section 10 is to be re-made by clause 6, to incorporate provision for appointment of acting senior nonpresidential members. Section 22 is to be remade by clause 13, to provide for a senior nonpresidential member to preside at a hearing of the Tribunal constituted as a non-presidential bench. Although the Bill does not require a senior non-presidential member to have legal qualifications, it is intended that in practice legal training will be required for such an appointment.

Next, the Bill proposes some changes to section 26 of the principal Act. That section enables additional jurisdiction to be given to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal by regulations made under the principal Act. At present, however, jurisdiction can be given only in respect of decisions made after regulations providing for appeals against decisions under a particular statute come into force. This means that, where there is an existing review machinery under a statute, regulations cannot provide for the transfer to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of matters pending before that existing review machinery at the date on which the relevant regulations are made. The purpose of clause 16 of the Bill is to amend section 26 of the Act to facilitate the transfer, by regulations made in accordance with that section, of the jurisdiction of existing appeal bodies to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The other provisions of the Bill that require special mention are those relating to the protection of information that ought not, in the public interest, be publicly disclosed in proceedings before the Tribunal or as a result of having been produced, in confidence, to the Tribunal. Section 36 of the principal Act empowers the AttorneyGeneral to give a certificate that the disclosure of information concerning a specified matter or the disclosure of the contents of a document would be contrary to the public interest. The giving of such a certificate does not prevent the information or documents being made available to the Tribunal, but it may prevent them being disclosed publicly or to parties to proceedings before the Tribunal. Except where the certificate is given on the ground that the disclosure would prejudice security, defence or international relations or would disclose proceedings in Cabinet, an Attorney-General’s certificate may be challenged before the Tribunal and may, if the Tribunal so rules, be set aside.

Section 36 is to be amended in 3 respects. First, the question whether a certificate should be set aside is to be determined by the President of the Tribunal. This is consequential upon the creation of the new class of senior non-presidential members to preside at sittings of the Tribunal. Under the Act as it stands, where a presidential member presides at a sitting of the Tribunal, he would decide the question whether a certificate under section 36 should be set aside. Secondly, it is to be made clear that where a certificate is set aside this may be done on terms that only some of the parties may have access to the document or information concerned. Thirdly, it is to be made clear that members of the staff of the Tribunal may have such access to a document or information the subject of a section 36 certificate as is necessary for them to perform their duties. A similar amendment is to be made to section 46 in relation to the staff of the Federal Court of Australia. The Act does not provide for the Attorney-General to claim a like immunity from disclosure in respect of an answer to a question asked of a witness in proceedings before the Tribunal. New section 36A, to be inserted by clause 23 of the Bill, makes provision for this to be done.

Section 66 of the principal Act makes it an offence for a member of the Tribunal, a former member of the Tribunal, or a member or former member of the staff of the Tribunal to disclose any information acquired by him by reason of his office or employment for the purposes of the Act. This provision goes much too far. It applies whether or not the information concerned is otherwise publicly available. It subjects members of the Tribunal of judicial status to restrictions that do not apply to them in their office as judges. Accordingly, section 66 is to be replaced by a new section, to ensure that documents or information furnished to or given in evidence before the Tribunal cannot be required to be produced or given in evidence in other proceedings if there is a relevant certificate of the Attorney-General in force under section 36 of the Act or the Tribunal itself has ordered that there should be no public disclosure of the material. The proposed new section also provides that a person who is or has been a member of the Tribunal may not be required to give evidence in a court in relation to any proceedings before the Tribunal.

Clause 28 of the Bill proposes the insertion of a new section 43A empowering the Tribunal to return documents lodged with the Tribunal to the person who lodged them. It is considered that proposed new sections 43A and 66, together with the general provisions of the law prohibiting unauthorised disclosure of information, will give adequate protection to confidential information and the privacy of persons appearing before the Tribunal. Regard must also be had to the powers the Tribunal has under section 35 of the Act to prohibit the publication of evidence. Contravention of an order of the Tribunal prohibiting the publication of material is punishable under section 63 of the principal Act. A new provision is to be made, by clause 36 of the Bill, for regulations to fix fees payable in respect of applications to the Tribunal. The regulations may provide for the refund, in whole or part, of any fees paid when the proceedings terminate in a manner favourable to the applicant. The provision is included in the Bill so that, if it appears necessary to do so in any particular class of appeals, fees can be prescribed to deter frivolous applications to the Tribunal.

The remaining provisions of the Bill relate to procedures in proceedings before the Tribunal. They are designed to simplify procedures and to facilitate the hearing of appeals by the Tribunal. Finally, I should mention that the Bill has been very carefully considered by the Administrative Review Council, which was appointed late last year. The Council endorses the changes proposed to be made to the structure of the Tribunal and to the procedures before the Tribunal. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Bill 1977

This is a very significant measure. The purpose of this BUI is to reform the law relating to the review by the courts of administrative actions of Commonwealth Ministers and officials. The Bill is a further step in the on-going review of Commonwealth administrative law that began with the establishment of the Administrative Review Committee- the Kerr Committee-in 1968 by the then Attorney-General. The proposals by that Committee have so far resulted in the establishment of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Review Council and the enactment of the Ombudsman Act. Both the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Review Council are in operation; the Commonwealth Ombudsman has been appointed and it is expected that he will take up his office about the end of June.

The present law relating to the review by the courts of administrative decisions is in a most unsatisfactory state. A great deal has been written about the shortcomings of the present procedures and it is not, I think, necessary for me to elaborate on these deficiencies in the present context. The law in this area is clearly in need of reform and simplification and to be put into statutory form. What the present Bill seeks to do is to establish a single simple form of proceeding in the Federal Court of Australia for judicial review of Commonwealth administrative actions as an alternative to the present cumbersome and technical procedures for review by way of prerogative writ, or the present actions for a declaration or injunction.

Before I proceed to say something about the details of the Bill, it may be useful to set these proposals in the context of the machinery for review already embodied in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Ombudsman Acts. It is very important that we get this in focus. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal is empowered to review on the merits any decision of a Minister or official acting under a statutory power if, but only if, the relevant legislation provides for an appeal to the Tribunal. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act does not confer a general right of appeal against decisions by Ministers, officials and statutory bodies. Where, however, an appeal lies to the Tribunal, the Tribunal may review on the merits the decision appealed from and substitute its own decision. The Commonwealth Ombudsman is not restricted to the review of decisions taken in the exercise of statutory powers. He is empowered to investigate complaints against decisions of Commonwealth officials and statutory bodies, whether taken under statutory power or in the ordinary course of administration. He is excluded from reviewing actions by Ministers, but he may investigate a recommendation made by a department to a Minister. He will not be concerned directly with reviewing the merits of the decisions or action of officials where no element of maladministration is present and, in particular, he will not be empowered to substitute his own decision for that under review. He may only recommend corrective action where he thinks there has been maladministration. No doubt in many cases his decision will lead to review.

Judicial review by the Federal Court of Australia will not be concerned at all with the merits of the decision or action under review. The only question for the Court will be whether the action is lawful, in the sense that it is within the power conferred on the relevant Minister or official or body, that prescribed procedures have been followed and that general rules of law, such as conformity to the principles of natural justice, have been observed. The Court will not be able to substitute its own decision for that of the person or body whose action is challenged in the court. It will be empowered to enjoin action or to quash a decision it finds unlawful and to direct action to be taken in accordance with the law. It will also be able to compel action by a person or body who has not acted, but who ought to have done so. It will thus be seen that the 3 avenues of review, appeal on the merits to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and judicial review by the Federal Court of Australia, provide different approaches to the remedying of grievances about Commonwealth administrative action. Each has its own place in a comprehensive scheme for the redress of grievances.

Apart from the technical limitations of the present law for judicial review under the prerogative writs, a person who is aggrieved by a decision usually has no means of compelling the decision-maker to give his reasons for the decision or to set out the facts on which the decision is based. Lack of knowledge on these matters will often make it difficult to mount an effective challenge to an administrative decision even though there may be grounds on which that decision can be challenged in law. Accordingly, one of the principal elements of the present Bill is a provision that will require a decision-maker to give to a person who is adversely affected by his decision the reasons for that decision and a statement of findings on material questions of fact, including the evidence or other material on which those findings were based. There is already a like provision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act in respect of decisions from which an appeal lies to the Tribunal. A draft of the present Bill was considered in detail by the Administrative Review Council, and the comments and recommendations of the Council have been embodied in the Bill that is now before the Senate.

I turn now to a description of the contents of the Bill. It provides for review by the Federal Court of Australia of decisions of an administrative character under an Act of the Parliamentother than the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1 970- a Territory ordinance or regulations or rules made under such an Act or ordinance. It also provides for the review of conduct engaged in or proposed to be engaged in for the purpose of making a decision to which the Bill will apply. Decisions made by the GovernorGeneral under statutory authority are to be excluded, and there is provision for regulations to be made excluding classes of decisions from the scope of the Bill. The present law provides only a limited scope for review of the exercise of statutory powers by the Governor-General acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council. Where the exercise of such a power is prima facie ultra vires, the courts can grant appropriate relief. But it appears doubtful whether the courts will inquire into the grounds on which advice is tendered to the Governor-General. It will still be open, in any case where such a decision is made in excess of statutory authority, for the existing remedies to be applied, but it has not been considered appropriate that the Court should be empowered to inquire into the proceedings of the Federal Executive Council in the manner provided for in the present Bill. Specific provision is made in the Bill for the Court to make an order requiring a decision to be made where there has been a breach of duty to make a decision to which the Bill applies.

The grounds of review are set out in clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill. Clause 5 applies to a decision that has been made and clause 6 applies to conduct engaged in or proposed to be engaged in for the purpose of making a decision to which the Bill applies. Conduct includes the taking of evidence or the holding of an inquiry or investigation. The grounds of review specified are those that have been developed by the courts. To avoid stultifying further development of the law by the Federal Court of Australia, each of clauses 5 and 6 contains the comprehensive ground that the decision made or proposed to be made would be otherwise contrary to law. Clause 1 1 of the Bill provides for an application for review to be made in the manner prescribed by rules of court and for the time within which it may be made. An application for review under the Bill may be made by any person who is aggrieved by a decision. This term is defined in clause 3(4) to include a person whose interests are adversely affected by the decision or would be adversely affected by a proposed decision. These provisions relating to the standing of a person to challenge Commonwealth administrative action may need to be reviewed when the Australian Law Reform Commission presents its report on the law of standing. The Commission currently has a reference from the Attorney-General on the subject.

Clause 13 provides that a person who is entitled to apply for a review of a decision may obtain from the decision-maker reasons for the decision, including findings on material questions of fact. I have already referred to the importance of this provision. No longer will it be possible for the decision-maker to hide behind a wall of silence. Clause 14 empowers the

Attorney-General to give a certificate that the disclosure of information would be contrary to the public interest on a ground specified in that clause. These grounds cover those under which a claim of Crown privilege may be made before the Court in judicial proceedings. The effect of such a certificate is that the information to which it relates need not be included in a statement under clause 13. Sub-clause (4) of clause 14 specifically provides, however, that the clause is not to affect the power of the Court to make an order for the disclosure of documents or to require the giving of evidence or the production of documents to the Court. The powers that the Court may exercise on an application for an order of review are set out in clause 16. The Court may quash or set aside the decision or part of the decision, refer the matter back to the decision-maker for further consideration subject to such directions as the Court thinks fit, make an order declaring the rights of the parties in respect of which the order relates, or direct any of the parties to do or refrain from doing any act or thing where the Court considers this necessary to do justice between the parties. Where there has been a failure to make a decision, the Court may make an order directing the making of a decision but not, of course, the making of a decision of a particular kind.

The Bill is intended to provide a comprehensive procedure for judicial review of Commonwealth administrative action taken under statutory powers. Clause 9 of the Bill is intended to ensure that this jurisdiction is exclusive of the jurisdiction of State courts. The Judiciary Act has long embodied the policy that actions of Commonwealth officers should not be subject to review by way of mandamus or writ of prohibition in State courts- section 38 of the Judiciary Act. The clause further makes it clear that actions of the federal judiciary are not to be subject to review in State courts. The jurisdiction of State courts to grant habeas corpus is not to be affected. Parliament cannot legislate, of course, to remove the powers of judicial review given to the High Court by the Constitution-section 75 (v). It is expected, however that the procedures provided for by this Bill will make resort to the existing procedures for judicial review unnecessary except where a review is sought of decisions excluded from review under the present Bill or otherwise in special circumstances. Most of the prerogative writs are granted on the discretion of the court and one would imagine that the High Court faced with an application for a prerogative writ under section 75 (v), would give careful consideration to the situation that an application could have been made to the Federal Court under these provisions. Clause 10 of the Bill preserves any other right of review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. In particular, paragraph 10 ( 1 ) (b) provides that the Bill is not to affect the powers of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

The Government also has 2 further measures in hand as part of the program of reform of administrative law. These are a Bill to set down standard procedures for Commonwealth adjudicative tribunals, in line with the recommendations of the Kerr Committee, and a Freedom of Information Bill, which will entitle persons to have access to documents in the possession of Commonwealth agencies, subject, of course, to certain exceptions designed to protect the public interest in the confidentiality of certain documents and proceedings. Both Bills are in the course of drafting. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1237

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Estimates Committee A

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– Pursuant to order of the Senate, I bring up the report of Estimates Committee A, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings and the explanatory notes provided by the departments whose estimates the Committee considered. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Estimates Committee B

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– Pursuant to order of the Senate, I bring up the report of Estimates Committee B, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings and the explanatory notes provided by the departments whose estimates the Committee considered. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Estimates Committee C

Senator MARTIN:
Queensland

Pursuant to order of the Senate, I bring up the report of Estimates Committee C, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings and the explanatory notes provided by the departments whose estimates the Committee considered. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Estimates Committee D

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– Pursuant to order of the Senate, I bring up the report of Estimates Committee D, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings and the explanatory notes provided by the departments whose estimates the Committee considered. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Estimates Committee E

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

Pursuant to order of the Senate, I bring up the report of Estimates Committee E, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings and the explanatory notes provided by the departments whose estimates the Committee considered. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Estimates Committee F

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-Pursuant to order of the Senate, I bring up the report of Estimates Committee F, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings and the explanatory notes provided by the departments whose estimates the Committee considered. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator RAE:

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a relatively brief statement in relation to that report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator RAE:

– I draw the attention of honourable senators to part of this report which the Committee believed to be most relevant to the consideration by the Senate of the Appropriation Bills, to which it is proceeding. During the Committee ‘s examination of the Additional Estimates its attention was drawn to several items, one of which was an amount of $ 1 1 ,000 for consultants ‘ fees, another was an amount of $50,000 paid in lieu of long leave and unremunerated periods of service as Acting Chief Justice to a former justice of the High Court, and a further amount of $40,500 paid to the former Chief Justice. The details which were sought resulted in the Committee being informed that the former First Parliamentary Counsel, after retiring before the age of 65 years, had been re-engaged under a written agreement for a period of 3 years from 8 February 1977 as a consultant to assist in the drafting of the legislative program at a remuneration of $134.96 for each day worked, based on a Level 4 Second Division officer salary in the Commonwealth Public Service, plus a loading of 15 per cent in lieu of recreation leave, sick leave and public holidays. Approval for the re-engagement of the former first Parliamentary Counsel as a consultant had been obtained from the Public Service Board and the Treasurer.

As a general principle, the Committee considered that a public servant who retired of his own volition before reaching the compulsory retiring age of 65 years and thereby became entitled to superannuation should not be engaged as a consultant at a fee which, taken together with the superannuation entitlement, provided a higher net income for work similar to that which would have been carried out had the public servant remained in the Public Service until reaching the normal retiring age of 65 years. Members of the Committee feared that such a practice could, if not controlled, become the subject of widespread abuse and could be used as a device to obtain an income advantage and also to overcome the restriction imposed on departmental staff ceilings by the Government. The Committee does not suggest that the present case falls into either of those categories, but merely suggests that it demonstrates the possibility of abuse. I take the opportunity to emphasise that attitude of the Committee. Should the necessity arise for such a consultant to be engaged by a department, the Committee firmly believes that any agreement entered into ought not to provide a loading for recreational leave, sick leave and public holidays. The Committee believes that such a consultant should be remunerated only for the task for which he has been engaged.

The second and third items to which we wish strongly to draw attention relate to payment from the Treasurer’s Advance Account to a former justice of the High Court of Australia of $47,500 in lieu of long leave and $2,500 for unremunerated periods of service as Acting Chief Justice, and the payment of $40,500 in lieu of long leave to a former Chief Judge of the Industrial Court. When hearing evidence from the departmental officers in respect of these 2 items the Committee was disturbed to learn- I emphasise this point- that no statutory authority existed to make the payments except for their subsequent inclusion m the Appropriation Bill soon to be debated in this chamber. The Committee was informed that a Cabinet decision made in 1967 did provide for such payments to be made to judges of Federal Courts but did not include justices of the High Court. Whilst the Committee does not quarrel with the principle that justices of the High Court and judges of other Federal courts should be remunerated for long leave, it considers that the arrangements not founded on statutory authority which prevailed in previous years and enabled payments to be made from public funds should forthwith be terminated and that the Government should introduce into the Parliament appropriate legislation to remedy the situation.

Such a course would enable the Parliament to exercise its historical and proper function of openly scrutinising all actions of the Executive. In no circumstances should such payments to justices of the High Court and judges of the various Federal courts be seen to be dependent upon a favourable government decision; rather, they should be based upon statutory authority. The Committee believes this to be of fundamental importance in maintaining the independence of the judiciary. I wish to draw that matter in particular to the attention of the chamber. It forms an important part of the Committee’s report. It involves something which is very fundamental to the principles upon which Parliament and government in Australia have operated in their relationship with the other arm of government, that is, the judiciary. I therefore felt it was important to draw this matter specifically to the attention of honourable senators.

page 1239

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1976-77

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 May, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I move the following amendment, which I understand has been circulated:

At end of motion, add ‘, but the Senate is of the opinion that-

the slashing of government spending is part of an inept economic strategy which has led to a decline in the standard of living of all Australians; and

b ) there is an urgent need for alternative policies of promoting a consumer led recovery by cuts in indirect taxes and appropriate stimulatory expenditure on job creation and manpower training programs, all done in a context of not increasing inflation by

phasing out the more extravagant business tax concessions,

increasing the money supply but not beyond the rate of inflation plus growth, and

instituting a more vigorous bondselling program.’

Honourable senators will note that the amendment expresses concern about certain government operations. In that context I want to take the opportunity to raise a number of matters which in my opinion show a lack of coordination between various government departments. I refer to an issue that is well known to both the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) and Senator Bishop. Last spring during consideration of the Estimates I asked a simple question about the observance of pay awards at the Kingsford-Smith international airport, which resulted in answers being given early in 1977 which indicated that a sum of $25,000 appeared to be the extent of under-award payments. This case has continued. I have asked several questions of Senator Durack concerning it. The company to which I refer, James Richardson Pty Limited, presently holds the concession at that airport.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That concession expires in June this year.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– That is right. As the honourable senator has perceived, that makes the situation all the more serious. To bear out the concern expressed by Senator Douglas McClelland, during the recent hearings of the Estimates Committees I asked officers of the Department of Transport whether we were on the verge of making reappointments or calling for fresh tenders and what was the batting record of the current holder of the tender. The answer I received was to the effect that tenders for the duty free concession at the Sydney airport had closed and that the new concessionaire would commence in about June. I was advised that the Department, in its examination of the tender by James Richardson Pty Limited, conferred with the State Department of Industrial Relations, which confirmed that James Richardson Pty Limited under its current contract was observing the appropriate awards. I ask the Senate to relate that response to a communication dated 5 May from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Street, in which he referred to a telegram from me suggesting that his officers ‘ report was hardly in accordance with the report, to which I referred earlier, which I had received from the Department of Transport. In this letter Mr Street said; referring to James Richardson Pty Limited:

My advice of 23 February 1977 indicated that the company had been requested to provide information about amounts due to individual employees and ex-employees in terms of the Inspectorate’s construction of the award provisions. The company however wrote to the Inspectorate on 4 March 1977 declining to do so on the grounds that this information had already been supplied . . .

In March the company, to say the least, was being exceedingly obstructive. To digress for a moment, readers of the Australian Financial Review might recall that some weeks ago the Secretary of the Public Service segment of the trade union movement, Mr Kidd, was reported to have pointed out that the inspectors felt that the present policy almost bordered on appeasement of certain companies which did not meet their award obligations. I again refer to Mr Street ‘s letter of 5 May in which he said: . . Inspectors are now working in the company’s head office in Melbourne assembling employment records, establishing occupational classifications and determining periods of employment. The company has been requested to provide all outstanding records by 10 May 1977.

The real crunch of my criticism is in the paragraph which stated that it had been established that the task would occupy a total of some 78 man weeks before the officers could assess the extent of the award breaches. To put this matter in its proper perspective, I ask that a communication to me from Mr Street, dated 5 May, and an answer, via the appropriate Senate committee, from the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) be incorporated in Hansard. Honourable senators will be able to see the grave discrepancy in relation to James Richardson Pty Ltd. I ask that these documents be incorporated in Hansard.

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

The documents read as follows-

Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations 239 Bourke Street Melbourne 5 May 1977

Dear Senator Mulvihill

I refer to your telegram of 29 April, 1977 and your subsequent discussion with an officer of my Department concerning the action being taken by the Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectorate in relation to alleged award breaches by James Richardson Pty Ltd in operating its establishments at Kingsford Smith Airport.

My advice of 23 February 1977 indicated that the company had been requested to provide information about amounts due to individual employees and ex-employees in terms of the Inspectorate’s construction of the award provisions. The company however wrote to the Inspectorate on 4 March 1977 declining to do so on the grounds that this information had already been supplied by an independant accountant who had advised that staff at the Airport had in effect been overpaid. I understand that this advice was conveyed to you by the company in November 1976.

Accordingly, Inspectors are now working in the company’s head office in Melbourne assembling employment records, establishing occupational classifications and determining periods of employment. The company has been requested to provide all outstanding records by 10 May, 1 977.

In addition calculations are being made manually by the Inspectorate in respect of the records which are currently available. It had been estimated that the task will occupy a total of some 78 man weeks and my Department is therefore purchasing programmable calculators with a view to expediting completion of the task.

You may be assured that the Inspectorate is giving priority to this task and you will be informed of the outcome as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely A. A. STREET

Senator J. A. Mulvihill, M.P. Parliament House CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600

Senator MULVIHILL:

-Now here is the answer that gives us a different picture-

Senator Mulvihill

Was the Department in contact with the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations to establish whether the irregularities in observing awards have been cleared so that James Richardson Pty. Ltd’s tender will be considered fairly or is the deadline for new tenders going ahead?

Answer

Tenders have now closed for the duty free concession at Sydney Airport and the new concessionaire will commence about June.

As part of the examination of James Richardson’s tender, the Department confirmed with the State Department of Industrial Relations that James Richardson, under its current contract was observing the appropriate awards. The new concession contract will be similar to the present contract in requiring the new concessionaire to observe all relevant Commonwealth and State Acts of Parliament and the rules and regulations made thereunder.

Concerning the Senator’s question about the problems last September, these referred to both the awards issue and provision of staff amentities. The former has been covered above. With the amenities, measures were taken to meet these requirements but necessarily of a temporary nature in view of the impending renewal of the contract. The new contract specifically requires that the tenant must provide staff welfare facilities and amenities generally in accord with the N.S.W. Factories, Shops and Industries Act 1962 and the regulations thereunder.

Departmental officers will see that these conditions are met within the bounds of practicability permitted by the space available in the building.

Very shortly an appointment will be made. I feel that it is a grave disservice to the concept of truthfulness before Estimates Committees when I get a statement from one department which states that James Richardson Pty Ltd is observing awards and a report from another department which indicates that since late last year this firm has been indulging in an evasive exercise. This is compounded by the fact that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack), who represents Mr Street in this chamber, and I received copies of a letter from the solicitors representing James Richardson Pty Ltd which indicated that we were trying to blackguard the firm.

I say very seriously that this is a matter in which, I believe, in general terms the Australian Government, through its Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, should not waste any more time. The Government should have launched a prosecution against James Richardson Pty Ltd because it is obvious that it is indulging in a massive exercise of procrastination. I do not use those terms lightly. I know that on many occasions there are misunderstandings about award definitions. Usually, as a result of either trade union prompting or intervention by an arbitration inspector, the firm realises that it has made an honest error and it does the right thing. But this firm is not only compounding the problem but also is brazen in its attempt to bludgeon its way out of it. It was almost on the threshold of making a threat to the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs and me in the terms of its letter. However, both Senator Durack and I resisted that threat. I say to the credit of the arbitration inspectors that they are dealing with this matter. What annoys me is that the inspection will involve 78 man weeks. The Australian taxpayer is paying for this inspection.

The point I wish to make was referred to in the Financial Review by Mr Kidd. A ‘tread softly’ approach is all right if it works and is not too costly. I believe that James Richardson Pty Ltd has two strikes against it. First, I shall be astounded if, in the light of these revelations which should have been known to the Minister for Transport, the contract of James Richardson Pty Ltd is considered for renewal. Secondly, whether or not that company’s contract is renewed, it has refused to co-operate and will cost the Australian taxpayer 78 man weeks of investigation and it merits punishment. There is no other word for it. It seems to me that this firm has a charmed life. It must have friends in high places. I understand that one of those dedicated customs officials at the airport in the course of his duty accosted the chief bond master of James Richardson Pty Ltd about certain goods in his possession. That man was under the influence of alcohol and abused the customs official. My information is that no action was taken against James Richardson Pty Ltd but the customs officer was chided for approaching the man.

I hope that by the end of this debate I shall be given an explanation of why the people who prepared this brief for the Estimate Committee that dealt with the Department of Transport were inclined to gild the lily and say that James Richardson Pty Ltd was not breaching awards. The amazing fact is that this award interpretation that is under dispute is similar to the interpretation of another award concerned with the Storemen and Packers Union. I have it on authority from the officials of the New South Wales Branch of the Storemen and Packers Union that its members are being paid under a definition that is being disputed in relation to members of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Union. There is difficulty in making restitution. The labour content is substantially female and there is a big turnover in the work force.

I hope that this situation will not occur again in any discussion of an Appropriation Bill or estimates. In considering whether an employer is paying the right amount under a State award one has to examine the Federal award also. This is not a matter about which a senator made a broad allegation. I simply asked out of curiosity whether the time sheets of employees at the airport were checked. From my observation of one girl’s concept of a day worker and a shift worker I felt that she had been underpaid but I did not rise in the Senate and make the assertion. I chose to deal with the matter in a low key by raising it at an Estimates Committee hearing along with Senator Donald Cameron and Senator Bishop. Those initial questions virtually opened up an industrial Pandora’s box. I cannot emphasise too strongly that when we link some misgivings of Commonwealth arbitration inspectors who have been told to go slow on some employers and the time factor- some people who should have received pay adjustments last spring are still waiting- it is not good enough. I hope that before the Senate goes into recess we shall receive some further information on this.

Whilst I am dealing with the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, I should like to express some concern about its capacity to move quickly in regard to the broad concept of apprenticeship training. I refer to page 190 of the Hansard report of Estimates Committee F of 28 April 1977. A fairly sizable amount was involved in subdivision 4 which dealt with employment training assistance. Senator Tehan asked a couple of questions in relation to this subdivision. I stated that the system was not as flexible as it should be. I referred in particular to the case of an apprentice electrician in Sydney. His employer had gone to the wall. The apprentice was in his third year but there seemed to be an inability to utilise the skills he had already gained. He was working as a workshop labourer with the New South Wales railways. A ganger, Mr Fred Highfield, who has been known to me for a long period, raised with me the matter that this boy could surely utilise his experience in some area.

As I saw the situation, we were rightly spending a large amount of money on employer subsidies for apprentices. Without taking away any particular government’s credit, I say that originally this was the brainchild of a former Minister for Labour and Immigration, Mr Clyde Cameron. The principle has been taken up by succeeding governments. I am not playing Party politics on this matter. I do resent the fact that on 28 April I handed to officers of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations a letter from this boy who felt that society owed him a little more. He had acquired certain skills and he felt he should be given an opportunity to complete his indentures. On the previous occasion when we dealt with apprentices at Estimates Committee hearings- this was last spring- the point was made by the Department that many apprentices feel after 6 months that they are not cut out for that type of apprenticeship, or conversely, there may be a poor relationship between the apprentice and the employer. That is fair enough. We expect some wastage. But I think it would be agreed that if a boy in his third year of his apprenticeship cannot continue it then there is something wrong. I do not intend to canvass the economic factors that caused the employer to cease business. I raised this matter on 28 April and I believe that with the massive apparatus we have we should have been able to upgrade and speed up the tempo of our apprentice training since the Clyde Cameron era. Surely we have learned something. I believe that somebody should have given me some feedback by now. It is wrong to operate this way because obviously if a boy has done two or three years of his apprenticeship it is much easier if he finishes than to go back to square one and have an influx of boys in their first year of apprenticeship. So I repeat that I think something better could be done.

I know that the other aspect of the present link between the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on the job assessment criteria for migrants could be improved. The Senate knows of the cases involving the Spanish stonemasons coming to Australia from Madrid. A stonemason skilled in Spanish architecture might employ 4 assistants, so he is the catalyst which attracts additional semiskilled and unskilled labour. I cannot harp too long on this point. I think the Minister will appreciate what I say. When this Government felt that there was a separation between the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs it was considered that it would be all right if there were very effective co-ordinating links, but I do not think we have these links.

I know of another case involving the Australian Journalists Association which, I suppose because it covers an international calling, has always accepted the line. It never jibs about nonAustralian journalists coming to Australia even for permanent residence. Conversely there is generally a reciprocal arrangement with other countries when Australians are involved. Recently I had to deal with the case of a journalist from Malaya who wished to come to Australia. There was considerable delay. As late as this week I got a letter from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr MacKellar, which indicated that an application could be successful where somebody is sponsoring a migrant to come to Australia on the basis of family reunion. There is also the argument of job criteria. The point I am making is that I do not believe the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations is working as effectively as it could work in making joint decisions with the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Where has this Malaysian journalist got to? He has dropped out of sight.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-There is a happy ending. He is coming here but he is coming here 2 months late. I think the honourable senator and other honourable senators opposite would appreciate that we have to show some solicitude for employers. The employer was on my back because he was keeping the job open and he wanted to know when the applicant would get here. I am trying to be very open-minded in making this point. I want to refer to another area which I call employee injustice. I refer to people employed by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation in the Migrant Information Service. Some of these people have up to 17 years employment but they are still deemed to be temporary employees. I know that the Commonwealth Banking Act at the moment has certain curbs in it. I think they relate to the age at which an employee enters the banking service. I believe that this is a profession in which there has been recent infusion of different skills and occupations but we have not geared ourselves for them. It may well be argued if the Commonwealth Public Service Board seeks wage justice for these people, quite apart from the emoluments which would result from permanency, that it may not have the ability to assess wages, as in the air traffic controllers case.

Although Senator Carrick is not here he would appreciate that since this Government came to power I have been arguing for a continuation of the idea of the former Department of Labour and Immigration to create an authority something like the Institute of Chartered Accountants to ensure adequate recognition of the proficiency of interpreters and translators. I know that this Government sort of backed and filled because originally Senator Carrick was going to be responsible for it, then I believe Senator Guilfoyle was to have it through Social Security and then later I believe there was a tug of war about the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs having it. The point I am making is that the Government should have moved a lot quicker to create this authority to assess and grade the calibre of interpreters and translators- these people who are neither fish nor fowl- in the Commonwealth Banking Corporation because I believe injustices are being done to them. I have a 3-point question which I ask to be incorporated in Hansard as a summary of the grievances of the employees in the Migrant Information Centres.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Melzer)- Is leave granted?

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I rise to my feet just to recollect to honourable senators that the Senate Standing Orders Committee recommended to the Senate-and my recollection I think is correct that the Senate agreed on this matter- that when an honourable senator sought to have unread matter incorporated into Hansard such senator should make available either to the Leader of the Opposition or to the Minister in charge a copy of what is sought to be incorporated. This was accepted by the Senate on the basis of putting to an end the constant problems that the Presiding Officer was involved in of leave not being granted sometimes because people were testy about this, that and the other. I rise to my feet at this stage only to suggest that this method of presenting matter to the Leader of the Opposition, the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate or the Leader of the Government in the Senate should be followed by honourable senators so that we can get down to a rational method by which matter can be incorporated in Hansard without any of the objectionable practices that have existed in the past. I ask that that be applied.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted for the incorporation?

Senator Cotton:

– I just feel that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack did make a proper objection.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I am not objecting to the incorporation.

Senator Cotton:

– I know. I am sure that Senator Mulvihill would appreciate that. I have now had a chance to read this matter and it seems to me to be something that we could quite willingly incorporate and accordingly we do not object.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTLeave is granted.

The question read as follows-

Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that the employees of the Commonwealth Banking CorporationMigrant Information Service, the largest and most respected translating organization in the country are still considered Temporary employees and are refused permanency and promotion opportunities by the Bank because of the Commonwealth Banking Act which restricts the Recruitment Age.

Furthermore that some of these employees have been in the employ of the Bank since its inception over 17 years ago and that some of these employees possess very High Translating or Professional Qualifications and that the Advancement within the interpreter/translator grades as set down by the Bank, it appears, depends more on the ability of the interpreter/translator to acquire new business for the Corporation or some other unknown reasons than on their linguistic abilities.

Does the Treasurer consider that this situation is satisfactory and or what changes is he proposing to regulate the status of interpreters/translators particularly having in mind a generally accepted Government Policy that interpreting/ translating is a very specialised field and that there is a well recognised acute shortage of specialists in this field and that the Government was attempting to alleviate this shortage by forming a number of courses to train future interpreters and that the Graduates from these courses attained much inferior knowledge of the Languages comparing to the knowledge of Languages possessed by the Commonwealth Bank Interpreters/Translators.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Thank you. The next matter I want to proceed on refers to the Department of the Army. Several people have raised this matter with me. I will illustrate it this way. When Australia had forces in South East Asia, members of the British Army came to Australia for jungle training. As Britain was not involved in that war I do not think it was the accepted thing that any of Britain’s troops went to South East Asia to complete their jungle training. On the reverse side,I have been asked what the position is regarding compensation. I do not know whether there are any Australian troops in this position at the moment. I will put forward a hypothetical case. Are there any Australian army personnel serving in West Germany or even in Northern Ireland on a training excursion, on military activities or military tactics? Are personnel involved not so much in civil rights matters but in disputes such as that involving nuclear power stations in West Germany? If British or North Atlantic Treaty Organisation troops were used what would be their compensation rights?

This is just a small matter but it has been put to me. What is the situation if any Australian armed forces personnel overseas not in an expeditionary force but on a training expedition in Britain were airlifted to West Germany with a British regiment, or for that matter to Northern Ireland? What compensation cover would they have? I imagine this is only a hypothetical question but it was put to me and I think it merits an answer.

The other matter that I want to refer to deals with the question of immigration. It has to do with staffing. Perhaps at a later stage I will be able to get some idea of the backlog and the delay in processing citizenship applications in the capital cities. In general terms I have been told that people get their citizenship over a span of three to six months. I raise this matter for a number of reasons. In the latter period of the Whitlam Government I did on one occasion speak somewhat harshly about the slowness of the Public Service Board in recruiting staff in this area. I know that additional staff was provided. But I am not satisfied now whether we are still keeping up with the demand. I think this is one aspect that should be stated.

I take this point a little further. I speak now for the New South Wales branch of the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association concerning a case which I have ventilated twice during the adjournment debate. It concerns a man named Joseph Costanzo, a member of the FEDFA, who has been in Australia for 39 years. I would say that he was 3 years old when he came to Australia. Due to a mixup in his early teenage years, when his mother acquired citizenship, he discovered only recently that he did not have Australian citizenship. He was in a cleft stick as to his actual birth date. We were able to obtain the P & 0 shipping invoice of 1937 which gave his age at that time as approximately 2 years and 9 months. His mother is now in her seventies and is in a nursing home. Naturally, it is very hard to get a clear answer from her. The question now is whether he is 41 years of age or 42lA years of age.

We were told that the next step was for him to get the information from the Italian authorities. I spoke to the Italian Consul-General in Sydney who rightly said to me: ‘Well, it is obvious that this man is seeking Australian citizenship. He has been here for 40 years. He is one of your people. We are not disposed to try to do anything special to find out this information. We doubt whether you will get the records’. I was back to square one. I raised the matter with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr MacKellar, via Senator Guilfoyle. We were told that action would be taken.

This story has a very sad ending. In the meantime, the Sydney officials of the Department kept strictly to the Act. I was told by one officer that if they made a mistake, when Mr Costanzo reached 64 years of age, due to this error he might be thought to be 65 years of age and he would receive an old age pension a year too early. Of course, that is 20 years ahead and I thought that that was rather negative thinking. I said: ‘What are you going to do?’ The officers said: ‘We will send a message to Italy. We will get an officer to go from the Australian Embassy in Rome to Naples to find out any details about his birth’.

A fortnight ago Joseph Costanzo, who is an overhead crane driver at the port of Sydney, was walking across from his crane and was crushed between 2 motor trucks. He is lying in a hospital now with crushed ribs and injured lungs and spleen. I make the point that the bureaucrats who thought that by playing strictly to the rules they would make sure that he would not receive a pension a year too early carried their view to an extreme. I believe that such an approach is not good enough. There should be flexibility in such cases. This man could produce income tax vouchers and evidence of 20-odd years of membership of various trade unions. I believe that he should have obtained citizenship. I appeal now to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I have written already to him today to the effect that I believe that our society should take some appropriate action regarding the case of that man who is lying close to death. In fact, up to 3 days ago he was being fed intravenously. He probably will not work in his normal occupation again. He is not aiming for any highly paid job. He will get the same wages whether or not he receives citizenship. These are only small matters but I know that on a citizenship day every honourable senator will exhort people to obtain citizenship. There are large segments of the population who do not have citizenship. I believe this is an area where there is a too rigid application as far as the law is concerned.

While I am on the subject, there have been numerous Press releases from the Minister on the attitude of the Government to political refugees. I do not intend to say much on that subject because I understand that there will be a statement on this matter tonight. It will be competent for me at that time to make further comment as far as that part of the statement is concerned. But I do make one appeal. It deals with the attitude of trade unions to migrant membership. I have mentioned already to the Senate the position of the FEDFA with regard to members seeking citizenship. But I wish to take this point a little further. I refer to a case which was drawn to my attention by the State President of the Australian Railways Union in Sydney, Mr Walsh, and by one of the younger officials, Mr Roger Law. It concerns the question of those people remaining in Lebanon. I know that with refugees from every country from which Australia has taken refugees-whether it be Chile, Lebanon, Cyprus, Timor or South Vietnam-the great dilemma is what is the cut-off point. I would like to believe that when a person has become an Australian citizen, is respected in his trade union or business association, and is engaged in permanent work, such as the New South Wales Railways, and a case in relation to this difficult question is put up, there will be some flexibility and that when a trade union goes in to bat for him, he will receive some attention.

I do so for this reason. I have never adopted a Utopian attitude to these cases. I have known cases- without going into the ethnic groups concernedwhere a man has a wife and a large family of eight or nine children. He might then want to bring out a mother or father from overseas. His income is probably virtually on a par with the basic wage. I know that there is always concern in such cases whether the added expense will be too much for him. Sometimes economically it can be. But in a case where it can be proved that a person is in government employsuch as in the case to which I am referring- I believe that the Minister, in seeking good relations with the trade union movement, could be a little more flexible. I refer to the Nathala family. In this case I believe that it would be much better if the Minister held a seminar type meeting with the trade unions in Melbourne and Sydney to clear up doubts on some of these guidelines. Numerous papers have been put out about lack of dialogue. Of course, in some areas, particularly in some small factories, there have been difficulties. I believe that when the trade unions themselves become involved in some of these cases they should get a better response than they are receiving.

The other matter to which I refer concerns the clearing house on migration issues. I have received a letter from an organisation concerned with this matter in which it expresses concern about the framing of the August Budget and just how much its activities will be curbed by its provisions. The Minister has advanced theories about the immigration intake and certain categories in which it would appear there is a lack of certain skills. If that is the case, I believe that many of these ancillary activities must be maintained. I say this for another reason. In many of these low wage groups the wife works to help the family to get out of the inner suburbs of Sydney. Parents must put their children into child minding centres and kindergartens for a greater part of the period between Monday to Friday. These matters are interrelated. It is essential that something be done.

Another matter that I raise concerns questions that are asked without notice and the slow feed back. I refer to 2 questions which I directed to Senator Carrick. I do not criticise him directly but my remarks are aimed at his colleagues in the other place. One matter about which honourable senators know I have been very concerned is whether we have kept abreast of the most effective methods of combating oil tanker mishaps and even small fires. A marine court of inquiry was conducted concerning a Gore Bay fire in Sydney harbour. That marine court laid down that all tanker crews must be better trained to handle petroleum originating fires. I asked that question of the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, through Senator Carrick before the Parliament began the last fortnight’s break. I do not think that it takes very long to get such an answer. I think that senators who were members of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution well know that there used to be fragmentation between the various oil companies and the oil tankers, all of which had their own idea of doing their own thing. When we read reports from the United States Coast Guard and speeches by Senator Edmund Muskie we see that the general idea to standardise safety equipment and safety techniques is of paramount importance. I would like to believe that we do not leave this matter to the oil companies to do it their way, but that we issue stringent conditions along the lines suggested by the judicial inquiry which I think was controlled by Mr Justice Evatt, a very illustrious name in the judicial field. I would like to know how long it will be before that decision is implemented.

I make these remarks for another reason. We all know that the only major oil spillage disaster in Australia- it was not of the magnitude of spillages which have occurred overseas- was the Oceanic Grandeur disaster in the Torres Strait. Fortunately for Australia the current took the oil away from our country. The Queensland Harbours and Marine Department, which played a small role, was not very enamoured of the Australian Department of Shipping and Transport. I know from later Estimates Committees that the

Department of Transport, which involved the shipping ministry in earlier days, has claimed that it has more effective liaison. Two seamen were burnt to death in the Gore Bay incident so we can realise the seriousness of that fire. I would like to know whether the Minister for Transport, using the Navigation Act as an instrument, has directed all oil tankers to make sure that their crews are more effectively trained or whether this matter has been left to the respective State marine authorities. I think that in the Sydney connotation the Maritime Services Board would be the relevant authority.

The only other matter concerning what I call slow feed back was one that I raised with Senator Carrick. It related to the present policy of this Government to more or less wind up the vision of former Ministers for the Environment, Dr Moss Cass and Mr Berinson, about the Australian Government having its own national parks and wildlife service. I relate this to Towra Point where the Whitlam Government acquired certain land. I understood from Senator Carrick initially that the previous New South Wales Liberal Government was seeking to contest the validity of that acquisition. Subsequently, with the advent of the Wran Labor Government, the action did not proceed. Senator Carrick felt finality had still not been reached. I understood that the matter was under discussion. I am not arguing whether the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service should control the areas concerned or whether the Federal Government should but I think it is time we got an answer.

Another matter which I think is not very edifying- I think agreement should have been reached before now- is our failure to get effective Federal-State relationship on the utilisation of land or perhaps in some instances on the handing back of land to the States. Let me go back to the era when Mr Barnard was the Minister for Defence. I know that New South Wales members will appreciate this point. We were told that the Moore Park engineers depot was to be phased out. The vacuum created could have been used for the merger of the Sydney Cricket Ground No. 2 and the Sydney Sports Ground to give Sydney a modern sports stadium that would meet a capacity of a minimum of 100 000 people. I feel like Aneurin Bevan when he left the coal pits of Wales and moved up into local government and further. Everywhere he went he wanted to know where the power was. He could not find where it was even when he became a Minister in the Atlee Government. I find from successive State and Federal Ministers that nobody can tell me when and why this land transfer will occur. I spoke even to officers of Eastern Command. My relations with them are very good. They said: ‘We may be going to Singleton or we may be going to Holdsworthy ‘. We have to consider all these things. After all the Federal Government or the State government is only the custodian of the people’s lands. I believe that we should know in clearcut terms just what are the points of argument about these land transfers.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– If it were not for the Defence Department there would be no open areas at all in Sydney.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I agree with the honourable senator. I do not want to hand the areas over to the developers. I give credit to the fact that some of this land has been retained as open space. I believe that provided there are strong safeguards the areas should be maintained as open space land. There is no argument about it at all. I believe that rather than leaving the matter in limbo a decision has to be made one way or the other.

I think I have ventilated a number of grievances. I end where I commenced. I believe I have cast some serious aspersions on why the Department of Transport appears to have covered up in relation to the concession at the Kingsford-Smith Airport. I would like to know why it nas not come clean on the matter. I hope that I will receive something clear cut. I would like to know why the firm concerned, James Richardson Pty Ltd, has been more or less, to quote a former Queensland senator, simply flogged with a feather.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Melzer)- Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Primmer:

– I second the amendment.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– We meet in a rather grizzly atmosphere after an ineffectual fortnight when an assault upon this chamber was defeated fortunately by constitutional means which provided for the people of the 3 small States to have the chance by individual votes to defend themselves. From some of the comments that we hear one would think that this is the first time that the people of Australia exercised in a referenda a discriminating and discerning judgment. I want to recall to the Senate- or at least to those few honourable senators who are here- that as long ago as 1 946 the people of Australia were able to select one out of three proposals put to them. They accepted the social service proposal and rejected the marketing and industrial power proposals.

I want to recall that in 1 967 when all three political parties propounded with unanimous voice a proposal to break the nexus between this House and the other place, the people of Australia in nearly all States- I think in 5 States if not six- by a vote approximating 70 per cent renounced the overtures of the trinity, the 3 parties, and under persuasion of some 10 senators, again from 3 parties, they rejected the nexus but overwhelmingly accepted the proposal relating to Aborigines. I take just these few minutes to pay tribute to the constitution of this chamber which provides as it does for protection of the representation here of the small States and which provides as it does for its defence in case of need for matters to be referred to the people where the small States have the decisive right of defeating any such assault. This assault, this proposal for simultaneous dissolutions of the Senate along with the House of Representatives, was deservedly, and with demonstration in the small States and particularly my State, defeated.

This leads me to consider, in the atmosphere of the Appropriation Bill, something which I would have thought would signal up the alert who have considered anything about the crisis of the Parliament which occurred as recently as December 1975. In that atmosphere I will indulge in some consideration as to where this Parliament is drifting. I suggest that inside the Parliament there is no will to preserve the Parliament itself. The only determination is by members of the Executive with the thrust from behind of the Public Service to exert power. There is no inclination or purpose discernible in relation to engaging in consultative deliberations with members of Parliament and in relation to having their products reviewed by this chamber.

Within the chamber we live mainly by disregarding the fundamental that ensures genuine purpose for our existence. Section 22 of the Constitution provides:

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the presence of at least one-third of the whole number of the senators shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the Senate for the exercise of its powers.

My submission is that it is simply an abuse or exploitation of the authority given to us that we sit here without a quorum. Usually the membership in the chamber is 6, 7, 8 or 10 senators. That connotes in my submission, respectful but nevertheless firm, that the disregard of that provision is not excused by the fact that an individual senator refrains from calling attention to the fact. This chamber should not sit as a constituted chamber unless one-third of its members are present. We escape with the excuse that its proceedings are immune from scrutiny by the judicial power. Any company, municipal corporation or other subordinate institution would have everything invalidated once non-compliance with its quorum were established.

Also, from within the chamber is withering. There is a provision in the Constitution which discriminates severely between those Appropriation Bills which we may amend and those which we may not. It is very rarely that any of the Bills for ordinary annual services are scrutinised to guarantee compliance with that category so as to ensure to this chamber the proper ambit of amendment. Three items in these Bills were referred to by the Estimates Committee of which Senator Rae is Chairman. One item, a consultancy fee to a retired public servant, can in no way be called an ordinary annual service. Gratuities to 2 judges for so-called long service leave can, under no description, be called ordinary annual services. It is required, I submit, of this chamber to exercise a vigilance to preserve its jurisdiction as to the proper scope of amendment.

Outside the processes are continuing, with formidable challenge to the very constitution of parliamentary government and, much more importantly, to the effective exercise of any power of parliamentary government. The first week of this last ineffectual fortnight was taken up by the sterilisation of air services throughout the Commonwealth. Government servants, air traffic controllers, on strike grounded all the civilian air services. Parliament was adjourned. Members were struggling about from place to place in Service aircraft, not exercising the power of Parliament. They were like fledglings, feathers in the wind, attracting the ridicule of a few people on strike. The laws of the country apparently- I think there are laws that could have been enforced- are so imported in their exercise as to allow that debacle. I take up the journal of the Public Service Association of May 1977. There is a good deal of expostulation on the part of the President at the thought that public servants should be bound to serve. Already public servants have passed resolutions expressing their abhorrence of boycott legislation in the trade practices area. We know that members of the Department of Foreign Affairs, bless my soul, have been denying communication to outside countries. We know that the Australian Post Office engages in assistance for the Fairfax strikers. Bless me, today it is announced in the public Press that the Post Office is proceeding with an appeal to the High Court against an order which a court in New South Wales directed to it to get on with its job. The Post Office is appealing for the right to be immune from a court order to work. Therefore, if parliamentary government is to mean anything, the public servants on the Industrial Relations Bureau and the Trade Practices Commission must do Parliament’s bidding as expressed properly in Parliament.

My concern does not derive from my consideration but out of my contemplation that the IRB Bill would promote a parliamentary contest of the utmost gravity. It seems now, in circumstances yet to be explained, to have collapsed. In preparing for it, I was provided by a very learned master in this field with an article by a Lord George-Brown in the Telegraph of August 1 975. He was formerly the deputy of Harold Wilson. He is a most astute man, an intellectual man and a man of judgment. One failing or one frailty lost him the Prime Ministership. He said:

Before we can sensibly and usefully discuss the question of the trade unions, the extent of their power and the use they make of it, we must identify the real basic sickness in our society. lt seems to me unquestionably to be a collapse in the authority of our democratic, parliamentary and governmental institutions. Successive governments- and I think this holds good irrespective of Party complexion- have been seen so frequently to back away from major issues, international as well as domestic. Parliamentary procedures, notably in the Commons, let me say- have really become pretty farcial.

They are not my words but the words of an experienced House of Commons man. I apply them to this Senate. Farcical! He continued:

Laws are being pushed through . . .

In the Senate second reading speeches are incorporated in Hansard with readiness. Honourable senators know that. How grumpy a man would be accused of being if he vetoed that. I do not make myself articulate, but I grump. He went on:

Laws are being pushed through almost totally undigested and largely unexamined and inevitably badly drafted-

In parenthesis let me cite as an eternal example the recent provision amending section 1 5 of the Constitution on casual Senate vacancies, a piece of draftsmanship which will go down in history as the most ridiculous and short-sighted piece of draftsmanship in the Constitution. He continued:

And so one could go on with the dreadful catalogue. Mere survival in office is now accepted as the mark of an ‘astute politician.’ Leadership in all parties is surely at something approaching an all-time low. We are living through, politically speaking, the age of mediocrity. Not to fall out with anyone is statemanship. Orwell’s ‘Newspeak’ and Doublespeak ‘ are with us a decade before his prediction. In such a situation, of course, cynicism nourishes. Respect for and acceptance of authority and law diminish.

And since parliamentary democracy is-and can only be by definition (rather like what I was taught in the

Catechism)- ‘something you may believe though not understand,’ then from cynicism flows disbelief and from that flows disregard. And at that point individuals and organisations of individuals feel entitled to fill the vacuum. Power passes from the shaking, nerveless hands at the centre to stronger and power-hungry hands elsewhere . . . Industrialists, professional bodies, ail kinds of vested interests are among the new barons imposing a later and much less worthy Magna Carta upon a spineless Executive and a debilitated Parliament.

When last I addressed this chamber on a motion a fortnight ago I referred to Roscoe Pound, that world famous jurist who likened the trade unions today to the vested interests of the church, the state, aristocrats, landlords and mercantile barons of old. I quote now Mr Justice Brandeis, notorious for his understanding of the needs of the ordinary trade union and the working man who wants to work and earn in a prosperous society. He said in 1972:

The unions should take the position squarely that they are amenable to law prepared to take the consequences if they transgress -

I think the use of the word ‘consequences’ there is a mere coincidence- and thus show they are in full sympathy with the spirit of our people whose political system rests upon the proposition that this is a government of law, and not of men.

That is taken from the Yale Law Journal of 8 July 1972.

Then we come to the Appropriation Bill. If Parliament means anything it is the parliamentary control of money that gives it its meaning and potency. It is understandable that the House of Commons should first debunk the House of Lords because it is only a mass of people who have been born by chance to that House. As late as 1911 when the 700 Lords were summoned ordinarily only thirty or forty would be present. It was natural that the House of Lords should be deprived of its power over money as early as perhaps the middle of the last century and finally in 1911. But this chamber is of an entirely different constitution. Its authority comes from an adult suffrage right through the Commonwealth which is identical to that of the other House. The distinction is that we represent States and members of the other House represent electorates. The Constitution gives the 2 Houses their appropriately defined right of appropriation. So well may it be that the Executive, which prides itself upon its exclusive monopolistic right to control money and appropriation, will demand unflinching compliance from members in the other place who support it. That is the business of those members. But if we in this chamber are to discharge the right of review that we won and on Saturday retained for the States, the right of amendment of appropriation of ordinary annual services is a real right to be exercised in practical circumstances. It is certainly not contemplated that there be a rejection of a whole Appropriation Bill except on occasions of crisis such as occurred clearly in November 1975. But putting that aside, the right of amendment or to request an amendment of particular items is just a piece of meaningless imagination unless the Senate adopts a practice whereby after examination in Estimates Committee we say that an item is unjustified, never should have appeared, or is contrary to anything that the Parliament would authorise if it came under a special Bill. Those who say that we wish to take the Government of the country out of the Government’s hands forget the fact that the Government with our assent has already provided its underground channel not to be dismayed by that sort of thing.

Like the rumour in Virgil growing apace, that spurious little item, the Advance to the Treasurer, is every night increasing in the dark. It has grown from $10,000 to $400m. The judges’ gratuity and the consultancy fee amounting together to about $90,000 have been paid. The contract has been entered into. Our vote would probably need the Bills to be recalled, but that would not shatter the Government. The suggestion that it would is simply a myth. All I am saying is that unless Ministers realise the true power of this House and exercise it for the good of the Parliament, as one sometimes takes distasteful medicine for one’s own good, we will wither. Our power will be meaningless. We go through this exercise of criticising civil servants who have put through these items and trundled them up to Ministers sometimes unobserved. It is an exercise in futility unless the judgment of this House is to be accorded proper responsibility. Of course that responsibility means that we exercise a judgment as to the propriety of each item in the Appropriation Bill.

Far be it from me to be understood as advocating a revolutionary campaign proposing that we take the finances of the country out of the hands of the Government. That is not my purpose at all. But we do not exist in this chamber as people who do not have the slightest authority in matters of corrective detail, in matters of glaring error, to make amendments or requests appropriate to the Appropriation Bills. There are those who say that, if the Government refused such amendments, there would be a deadlock. Of course, in the last futile fortnight we heard no reference to section 57 of the Constitution, which is the most famous section of the Constitution and which requires a rejection twice repeated after an interval of 3 months. There would be no difficulty whatever for the Government out of a Budget of, say, $2 billion to pull out items to the value of $200,000, reintroduce the Bill with those items deleted, have the $200,000 dealt with in a special Bill, and then to see whether it would be rejected twice after an interval of 3 months. In that event, let the people decide.

So, in the last year of my existence in this place, I am putting forward this proposition in the hope that we will be able to formulate a new sense of purpose to enable parliamentary government to be the reality that people believe it is and in the hope that we will not yield to the assaults from both inside and outside to which I have referred and to which Mr Justice Brandeis and Lord George-Brown most purposefully referred.

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– I rise to support the amendment moved to the Appropriation Bills by Senator Mulvihill. Before dealing with those Appropriation Bills, I feel that I should say something about some of the remarks that Senator Wright has just made. Whilst I realise that he holds very strong views in relation to the referendum questions that were put last Saturday, I think all of us should remember that an overwhelmingly percentage of the Australian people voted as a nation to change the Constitution in relation to all issues and not just the 3 issues that were carried.

Senator Wright also raised the matter of quorums in this chamber. Senator Wright has been in this place for a long time. But I must say that as a new member, or a newer member, in this chamber I have noticed that the lack of a quorum does not seem to worry the majority of honourable senators. It certainly does not worry me. One of the factors that I have found frustrating in this place is that, in spite of the fact that my work on the Senate Committees- I am a member of 2 such committees- has been perhaps the most important role that I have found I have been able to fill since I have been a member of this Senate, the Standing Orders of the Senate prevent the Senate committees from meeting while the Senate is in session. I hope that at sometime in the future we will look at the situation to try to overcome that problem. Whether it means in fact that there will be fewer members in the chamber is, I believe, irrelevant.

Senator Wright also made some points about the air traffic controllers strike. I say at the outset that I did not agree 100 per cent with what the air traffic controllers did and I did not agree completely with the claim they were making. I ask Senator Wright: What would any government have done? What could have been done? Who was going to bring in those aircraft? I think one of the best statements that was made about the air traffic controllers strike was when somebody wrote that it was presenting the Government with a very difficult decision. The author of the statement likened it to a strike of brain surgeons, because it did not matter what was done, whether people were gaoled or whatever they were threatened with, as there was nobody else in the community sufficiently qualified to keep bringing in the aircraft and to take the place of the air traffic controllers at the airports.

Senator Wright also made some remarks about the Industrial Relations Bureau legislation. I hope that I have not misinterpreted his remarks but I took them to mean that he was hoping that the Government would go ahead with its legislation. I know that honourable senators on this side of the chamber consider that legislation to be very harsh indeed and believe that it would have led to a confrontation not only in this place but also between the trade union movement and the Parliament. I believe that the fact that this Industrial Relations Bureau Bill now looks as though it will be passed without that confrontation is a victory for compromise and not a victory for confrontation.

Senator Wright quoted Lord GeorgeBrown at length. I have a great deal of respect for Lord George-Brown also. Lord George-Brown might have known that in the United Kingdom 10 per cent of the population own 73 per cent of the wealth. Perhaps that explains why the trade union movement in Britain has been so tough in its attitude and has been so much more militant than has been the trade union movement in this country.

As I said earlier, I support the amendment moved by Senator Mulvihill. This debate on the appropriation legislation gives us all an opportunity to review the Government’s progress or its lack of progress in the intervening months since the Budget was brought down in August 1976. Looking at the Government’s present performance, it would be fair to say that it has a fairly dismal record. If we look at the economic situation, we find we have a continuing high rate of inflation, a continually unacceptable high rate of unemployment, an increasing deficit, a lack of business confidence and a lack of consumer confidence. As someone who comes from Sydney in New South Wales, I know that in that city it is not enough to look just at unemployment. One has to look at youth unemployment. The situation has reached very serious proportions in Sydney and right throughout the State of New

South Wales. That is something which will have to be looked at by this Government as a issue separate from that of unemployment generally. Let me deal with consumer confidence. I saw some statistics recently which showed that the average person in Australia has through the usual channels- through savings bank accounts, through buildings societies or through credit unions- a record amount of money deposited and available at the moment. I think we must ask ourselves why they are not spending that money. It is not that they do not have the funds, the funds are available. The Government will have to do something about the lack of consumer confidence at the moment. If one were to look at all the economic indicators at the moment one could not predict anything but a gloomy future.

For a long time now we have seen the Government trying to blame all of the economic difficulties on the previous Labor Government. How many times have we sat in this chamber and heard honourable senators opposite say that is is all the fault of the previous Labor Government. Surely that excuse has now worn out. Surely that cannot now be said following devaluation. I think that the Government has to live up to its responsibilities and acknowledge from now on that its policies are directly responsible for the economic crisis with which we are currently faced. We have seen devaluation of the Australian dollar. We have seen continual cutbacks in public sector spending. We have seen continual uncertainty with respect to tariff policies. We have seen continuing high interest rates. All of those factors have contributed to an Australian economic picture which is probably the worst in the postwar period. I think that the Government’s incapacity to deal adequately with the situation is not confined specifically to the economy only; I think it can be said of virtually any area of public activity which comes under the national Government s jurisdiction. It goes right across from the area of foreign affairs to health and social welfare and Federal-State relations. These are some of the matters to which I hope to refer later in my remarks.

In the area of foreign affairs, we have seen continuing procrastination in relation to the situation in East Timor. The Government parties are split on that issue. We have heard some of the speeches that have been made already in this chamber on East Timor. Yet the Government has been unable to come to grips with that issue which undoubtedly is of fundamental importance to all of us. It is important to our future foreign policy, especially our policy towards the nation of Indonesia. The question of Indonesia is a crucial one. Our relations with countries such as Indonesia, which is our nearest neighbour bar one, are of critical importance to Australia in the last part of the 20th century. I believe that an Australian parliamentary committee rather than the United States Congress should be looking at that situation. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

page 1251

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS

Ministerial Statement

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

– I seek leave to make a statement relating to nuclear safeguards.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

-The statement is made on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). As it is a long statement I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. It is identical with the one made by the Prime Minister in the other place.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The statement read as follows-

The future course of world nuclear development and the regime of international controls which should apply to such development are currently subjects of great international interest. In the past few weeks for example, there has been an important statement by President Carter on nuclear energy in which he emphasised the need to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons or explosive capabilities without forgoing the tangible benefits of nuclear power. Again, at their recent summit meeting, the Heads of Government of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, West Germany, France, Japan and Italy committed themselves to increasing nuclear energy to help meet the world’s energy requirements while reducing the risks of nuclear proliferation. They launched an urgent study to determine how best to fulfil these objectives. At the conclusion of the recent Salzburg Conference, the most important international conference held in recent years on all aspects of nuclear power, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency referred to the agreement of the meeting that nuclear power was a necessary and irreplaceable source of the future energy supply to mankind for both the short and the longer term.

It is clear that there is widespread international concern to establish a framework of control within which the benefits which many countries see in the peaceful use of nuclear energy can be safely realised. These are issues of major international importance in their own right, but they have an added significance for Australia because of our potential as a supplier of uranium. They are issues on which I have already written to President Carter and Prime Minister Trudeau and on which the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) and Australian officials have held detailed consultations with the United States, Canada and other countries. They are issues which have been under the closest and most careful consideration from the moment the Government took office. In the present period of international reappraisal of these issues the Government is determined that Australia should play an active role with other countries in the search for, and achievement of, joint solutions.

A proliferation of nuclear facilities without adequate protection against diversion of material to nuclear weapons production of nuclear explosives would pose serious threats to international stability and peace, obviously inimical to Australia’s interests and to global and regional security. It was for this reason that in his address to the United Nations General Assembly last September, the Foreign Minister (Mr Peacock) described the strengthening of measures to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons as a central and fundamental area in which Australia looks and hopes for early progress. This will remain the case whether or not Australia is ultimately to become a major exporter of uranium. The safeguards policy which we will follow is, in our view, appropriate for any country to follow whether it be a uranium supplier or consumer. I make clear from the outset that the term safeguards is used here to denote the whole range of measures used to provide assurance that nuclear material supplied for peaceful purposes is not misused for non-peaceful or explosive purposes.

The Government fully accepts that if it were in future to permit new uranium export from Australia, this would carry with it added responsibilities. Against the background of these international responsibilities the Government accepts that uranium is a special commodity, the export of which would involve important considerations of a kind not involved in the export of other commodities. This implies a requirement for selectivity in the choice of customer countries and the closest attention to ensuring adequate safeguards. It is not the Government’s view that safeguards should be regarded as something to be balanced against commercial considerations. We view adequate safeguards as a fundamental prerequisite of any uranium export which we would also expect responsible customer countries for Australian uranium readily to accept.

It will be recalled that, following the release of the first report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, the Government announced in the House on 1 1 November 1 976 that it supported the Inquiry’s view on the need for the fullest and most effective safeguards on uranium exports. The Government also stated that is was carrying forward more detailed consideration of safeguards in order to further develop a national policy on this subject.

The announcement of a policy at this stage, of course, in no way pre-empts a decision on the question whether any such new contracts for the export of uranium will be permitted. As the Government has repeatedly emphasised, this remains a matter for consideration following receipt of the final report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. However, as the Foreign Minister said in the Government’s foreign policy statement in the Parliament on 15 March 1977 the Government would be remiss if it did not address itself to safeguards questions in the meantime. That the Government has taken certain decisions on safeguards policy at this stage reflects its determination to ensure that an established frame-work of policy exists so that any new uranium exports take place under the most carefully considered and responsible conditions possible. The Government wishes to avoid a situation in which decisions may be required on new uranium marketing at some point in the future without the benefit of a clear policy on the ground rules to apply so far as safeguards are concerned.

The Government has long recognised the desirability of defining a comprehensive policy on safeguards. It would not be desirable for safeguards requirements to be left to ad hoc decision as this would not afford the strong and clear support for international efforts to strengthen controls against nuclear weapons proliferation to which the Government attaches major importance. Australia is a potentially significant supplier of uranium, but if we are to play the part which this potential gives us the opportunity to play of contributing effectively to international efforts to strengthen the non-proliferation regime, it is desirable that uranium importing countries and other nuclear supplier countries alike know where Australia stands on the matter of safeguards.

In the narrow sense, safeguards are systems of containment, surveillance, accounting and inspection of nuclear materials and facilities designed to verify that diversion does not take place from peaceful to non-peaceful or explosive purposes. The major systems of international safeguards are administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency. In a broader sense, safeguards for future Australian uranium exports would comprise, as well as the application of international safeguards in this strict sense, the securing from importing countries of adequate assurances regarding the use and control of supplied nuclear material and the conclusion of binding arrangements to give effect to such assurances. In both senses- as mechanisms for verification and as controls and conditions for nuclear exports- safeguards arrangements are an evolving structure, continually being strengthened, refined and improved.

Against this background, I would like to announce the following specific components of the comprehensive safeguards policy which the Government has adopted. These cover: The need to keep policy under review; careful selection of eligible customers for uranium; the application of effective International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards; bilateral agreements with customer countries; fallback safeguards; prior Australian Government consent in relation to reexport, enrichment and reprocessing; physical security; safeguards provisions in contracts; and international and multilateral efforts to strengthen safeguards.

First, it will be a basic feature of our approach to recognise that the process of strengthening and improving international safeguards arrangements is an ongoing one. Our policy and safeguards arrangements must be kept closely under review to take account of the future evolution of international thinking on safeguards. In this regard the Government is pleased that, as recently announced, Mr Justice Fox has agreed to become an adviser to me on policy matters relating to nuclear non-proliferation and safeguards.

Second, should the Government approve further development of the Australian uranium industry it will retain the right to be selective in the countries to whom uranium export will be permitted. The following minimum criteria for eligibility to receive Australian uranium will apply. The Government emphasises that these represent minimum conditions for countries to be eligible to receive Australian uranium. The

Government makes clear that wider foreign policy considerations may also be taken into account, and that it reserves the right to refrain from permitting export should this be appropriate in the light of such considerations. It does not, therefore, follow that the Government would necessarily permit export to a country meeting these minimum safeguards criteria.

In the case of non-nuclear weapon states- that is to say all countries other than the 5 existing nuclear weapons powers recognised by the NonProliferation Treaty- sales will be made only to countries which are parties to the NonProliferation Treaty.

Because of these countries’ safeguards obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty this policy will ensure that the entire civil nuclear industry in such customer countries is subject to effective safeguards to verify that nuclear material, whether of Australian or any other origin, is not diverted from peaceful uses. The Government is aware that work has recently been underway within the International Atomic Energy Agency on a new system of equality stringent safeguards to cover the entire nuclear industry in non-nuclear weapon states which are not parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It will be following progress on this matter and the implications which it may have for our policy.

Regarding existing nuclear weapon states, they are not obliged under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to renounce nuclear weapons or accept international safeguards. They retain the right to use nuclear material for weapons as well as peaceful purposes. Even so, Australia would want to have assurance that nuclear material we may supply for peaceful purposes is not diverted to military or explosive purposes. We will therefore export only to nuclear weapon states which give Australia this assurance and accept that the uranium we supply be covered by International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. In this respect the Government’s policy introduces a requirement additional to those recommended by the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry in its first report.

Third, the Government wishes to ensure that if a decision is taken to permit new uranium export, the uranium will be covered by International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards from the time it leaves Australian ownership. As matters stand, while safeguards applied under the NonProliferation Treaty require notification of transfers of yellowcake, the full intensity of such safeguards only commences to apply later in the fuel cycle. Accordingly it will be the Government’s policy that any future sales arrangements for exports of Australian uranium should be such that the uranium will be in a form which attracts full International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards by the time it leaves Australian ownership.

Fourth, Australia will require the prior conclusion of bilateral agreements between the Australian Government and countries wishing to import Australian uranium under any future contracts. These bilateral agreements will provide a framework for direct and binding assurances by importing countries to the Australian Government in relation to the use and control of uranium supplied by Australia or nuclear material derived from its use. The fundamental undertakings the Government will wish to obtain from uranium importing countries in such bilateral agreements are that nuclear material supplied by Australia for peaceful purposes or nuclear material derived from its use will not be diverted to military or explosive purposes and that International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards will apply to verify compliance with this undertaking. Australia would seek to arrange with uranium importing countries regular expertlevel consultations to satisfy ourselves of the implementation of the provisions of bilateral agreements. In line with the positions taken by the United States and Canada Australia would retain the right to cease supply of uranium to any country which breached safeguards undertakings.

Fifth, the Government takes the view that nuclear material supplied by Australia or nuclear material derived from its use should remain under safeguards for the full life of the material in question or until it is legitimately removed from safeguards.

In line with this basic principle the Government has decided that bilateral agreements with non-nuclear weapon states should make provision for so-called fallback safeguards. I have already made clear that Australia would not be prepared to export uranium to such countries in the absence of International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards applied under the NonProliferation Treaty. However, the question arises of ensuring the continued safeguarding of material already present in an importing country should safeguards under the Non-Proliferation Treaty at some stage cease to apply in that country. There should be provision under the bilateral agreements for the continued application of international safeguards in such circumstances. Further, the bilateral agreements should provide for Australia to make alternative arrangements for the safeguarding of nuclear material supplied by us in the event of international safeguards as such ceasing to operate.

Moreover, the Government feels it is reasonable to ask importing countries who will already accept International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards of comprehensive scope under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to accept that, at the first fallback level also, international safeguards should apply to all nuclear material, not just that portion supplied by Australia.

Sixth, the Government considers that it would be an unsatisfactory situation for uranium supplied by Australia to one country, or nuclear material derived from its use, to be able to be reexported to a third country without the opportunity for Australia to satisfy itself that adequate controls would apply to the transferred material and that the ultimate destination is acceptable to us. For this reason the Government has decided that bilateral agreements with uranium importing countries should make any transfer of supplied material to a third party contingent on the prior consent of the Australian Government. This provision will give Australia the means of ensuring that our safeguards requirements are met despite any onward transfers of the uranium we supply or nuclear material derived from it.

Seventh, we would require that Australian uranium supplied to other countries for peaceful uses not be enriched beyond 20 per cent uranium-235 without prior Australian consent. This provision is in line with the practice adopted by other nuclear supplier countries The figure of 20 per cent has been chosen as representing a level of enrichment below the practical requirements fora nuclear explosive, while being above the enrichment level required for most peaceful uses, excepting, for example, some research and radioisotope production reactors, for which approval to enrich to the necessary level would need to be obtained. In respect of this requirement also, the Government’s policy extends beyond the recommendations made by the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry in its first report.

Eighth, the Government is aware of the interest of some countries in the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to meet their anticipated future fuel requirements, and to facilitate the management of nuclear material following its use in nuclear reactors. At the present time the need for reprocessing and the details of an effective control regime for this area of the nuclear fuel cycle are the subject of close study internationally. This is an area in which there are a number of new ideas and initiatives. The United States has proposed an International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation Program to consider various nuclear fuel cycles in terms of their implications for proliferation control. There are also such ideas as various schemes for multinational control of reprocessing facilities and for the management of spent fuel and plutonium. The Government welcomes these studies and consultations and will seek to contribute actively and constructively to relevant aspects of them such as fuel supply assurances and waste management.

The Government’s view is that, prior to a clearer outcome emerging from this current international activity it would be premature for Australia to adopt a unilateral position on the detailed conditions under which we might be prepared to agree to reprocessing, if any, of nuclear material supplied by Australia. In order to effectively reserve Australia’s position on this matter for the time being we would wish to make provision in bilateral agreements with countries importing Australian uranium that any reprocessing of nuclear material supplied by Australia may only take place with the prior consent of the Australian Government. This requirement is additional to those recommended by the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry in its first report and reflects similar concerns to those expressed by the Inquiry in relation to reprocessing.

Ninth, the Government would require in future bilateral agreements the assurance from uranium importing countries that adequate physical security will be maintained on their nuclear industries. In addition, we believe the agreements should specify compliance with standards of physical security based, at a minimum, on International Atomic Energy Agency recommendations as presently defined and as updated from time to time. They should also make provision for expert level consultations as necessary on physical security arrangements. These requirements also translate into concrete policy measures concerns expressed by the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry.

The incorporation of these provisions in the Government ‘s safeguards policy reflects our concern that total nuclear control should encompass not just safeguards to verify that nuclear material is not illicitly diverted from peaceful uses by national governments or national authorities, but also to protect nuclear material from illegal use by groups or individuals.

Tenth, the establishment of effective arrangements for safeguards is essentially a matter for governments and for inter-governmental agreements, either bilateral or multilateral. Nevertheless, it is important to ensure that the actual parties to commercial contracts, which may be private organisations, are also aware of the safeguards obligations to which their transaction is subject. For this reason, although the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry in its first report did not make a recommendation on this matter, the Government has decided that it is desirable that, as a standard practice, a clause should be included in any future contracts for the export of uranium from Australia noting that the transaction is subject to safeguards as agreed between the importing country and the Australian Government.

Finally, as an important complement to the measures I have outlined so far, the Government recognises the importance of Australia contributing to constructive multilateral efforts to strengthen safeguards. There is a need for what President Carter has described as systematic and thorough consultations in this area. We too consider that it is highly desirable that there should be the widest possible consensus amongst both nuclear supplier countries and nuclear importing countries on the controls to apply to the world nuclear industry. The wider the consensus, the more effective these controls will be as a barrier to nuclear proliferation. The more uniform the views of the countries concerned, the easier it will be to implement a properly effective regime of controls. It will be an integral part of Australia’s approach to safeguards to seek to promote such a consensus.

In particular, we will seek to co-ordinate policy on safeguards with other like-minded countries. As I noted at the outset, I have already initiated an exchange of correspondence with the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada expressing this wish, and extremely valuable consultations have already taken place. The policy I am now announcing incorporates the Government’s consideration of these consultations and represents a very similar approach to safeguards to that adopted by the United States and Canada. More generally, nuclear supplier countries have a special role and responsibility in the ongoing development of safeguards and Australia will be prepared to participate with them in any constructive efforts to develop a co-ordinated approach.

We will also continue to attach major importance to the effective application of safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency. We will investigate if there are specific areas in which Australia could usefully assist the Agency’s capacity to apply increasingly effective safeguards.

At the present time the Government sees a multilateral approach towards safeguards questions as being especially desirable in one specific area as well as the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation Program already mentioned; we would wish to lend support to the development of an international convention on the physical protection of nuclear material in international transit. Also, we would wish to explore with other countries a common approach to sanctions in the event of a breach of supply conditions.

The essential ingredients of the policy I have outlined are careful selection of customer countries, the application of international safeguards to verify that material supplied for peaceful purposes is not misused, the establishment of additional safeguards through bilateral agreements, and an active involvement by Australia in international efforts to upgrade safeguards. The policy is the result of full, careful and detailed consideration of safeguards by the Government. It builds on the preliminary thinking of the Government described in testimony to the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry last year, as well as the recommendations of the first report of the Inquiry itself. The policy has been the subject of detailed exchanges of views with other countries- both uranium importers and major nuclear exporters- and relevant international organisations including the International Atomic Energy Agency.

As a result the Government is satisfied that the policy it has decided upon represents a practical, reasonable and effective package of safeguards measures to seek from countries wishing to import uranium from Australia under any future contracts. It is fully in step with current international efforts to strengthen safeguards. The policy goes beyond a mere acceptance by Australian of our international obligations as a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and constitutes a policy as stringent as that adopted to date by any nuclear supplier country.

Senator WITHERS:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

-I move:

I understand that Mr Justice Fox will be putting down his report tomorrow. I assume that it will be tabled here either tomorrow or the next day. For the information of honourable senators, I have spoken with both the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) and the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate (Senator Douglas McClelland). I am suggesting that the Whips have a discussion and, after honourable senators have had time to study both this statement and the Fox report, an evening be set aside next week for debate on both these matters.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wriedt) adjourned.

page 1256

WHITE PAPER ON MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

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

– For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table a White Paper on Manufacturing Industry. I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the paper.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator COTTON:

-I move:

Our policy statement on manufacturing and industrial development stated that the Jackson Committee Green Paper would be taken further by the development of a White Paper. The Government has devoted considerable time and effort to obtaining the widest possible range of views for consideration in the preparation of the White Paper. The Government attaches great importance to the role which manufacturing industry has played and will continue to play in the Australian economy. We are mindful of the need to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that manufacturing industry will develop on a sound basis, taking full advantage of Australia’s endowment, particularly in regard to our wealth of energy and other resources. There would be little point in having a White Paper rushed through without proper consideration of all the relevant issues. A White Paper must be a well thought out, sensible and realistic document which industry and the community generally can appreciate as being a sound approach for the future.

Industry policy, by its nature, must be concerned with the long term allocation of economic resources and patterns of investment, in terms of both capital equipment and human skills. Unpredictable or excessively rapid changes in these patterns can result in unacceptable economic and social disruption. A clearly stated and widely accepted approach to industry policy is therefore desirable, indeed required, if necessary long term investment in equipment and skills is not to be deterred by unpredictability of Government policies. The changing environment for manufacturing in Australia is in part an aspect of the world-wide process of change. Thus for a variety of economic, social and international reasons the structure of Australian manufacturing industry, derived from the national needs of the past, is changing in response to new circumstances. Whilst recently, in some cases, this response may have been faster and more extensive than desirable, the process of change is bound to continue over the longer term and it is in the national interest that it do so.

A major part of the White Paper is devoted to ways of generating a wider and fuller understanding in the community of the significance of the changing environment for Australian manufacturing industry and to means of establishing through consultation a general acceptance of how to respond to these changes. The White Paper sets out the Government’s approach to industry policy both to ensure steady progress towards the stronger and more viable manufacturing sector in the longer term and to meet short term problems. This does not imply that manufacturing is to be given a preferred position apart from other economic activities. There is a strong and complex interdependence between manufacturing and other sectors of the economy. These relationships must be reflected in the manner in which policies for manufacturing industry are integrated with the nation’s overall economic and social policies, and with policies bearing specifically on other sectors with strong ties with manufacturing. We have taken these considerations fully into account in the preparation of the White Paper.

Manufacturing industry constitutes an important part of the Australian economy. The manufacturing sector accounts for about a quarter of national production, and about a fifth of Australian exports and employs almost 1 300 000 people. There have, however, been significant changes in the position and outlook of manufacturing industry in recent years. Since the mid-1960s the development of newly identified mineral resources and growth in international demand for these resources have brought a changed balance of payments outlook. Inflationary pressures, lower birth rates, reduced immigration, changing patterns of consumption expenditure as incomes rise and industrial development of other countries in our region, have all contributed to a major change in outlook for manufacturing industry in Australia.

The importance of these factors has been heightened by rapid wage increases in recent years and, in the absence of clearly stated and widely accepted policies, uncertainty as to the substantive direction of Government policy has been a disturbing influence on industry’s ability to plan ahead.

In recent years, some manufacturing activities have faced a decline in international competitiveness, with the loss of export markets and increasing competition from imports in the home market. Consequently, businesses have been making decisions which are bringing about changes in the structure of Australian industry. Faced with rising wages and other costs, many enterprises have reduced their work forces, lowered their levels of Australian content and in some cases have set up manufacture overseas. Investment in new manufacturing facilities in some sectors in Australia has been at low levels. Naturally, we must expect that from time to time there will be some degree of conflict between our objectives in the range of areas affected by decisions in regard to manufacturing industry, and, in such circumstances, there will be a need to achieve an appropriate overall balance in our policies which will best serve the national interest.

The Government has already taken several initiatives to assist manufacturing industry. A major investment incentive program, with substantial benefits, has been introduced and will be continued. The effect of inflation on company tax has been partially offset by trading stock valuation adjustments. Distribution requirements for private companies under Division 7 of the Income Tax Assessment Act have been eased. Temporary assistance has been provided for those areas of industry most seriously affected by import competition. The Temporary Assistance Authority legislation is to be amended to allow greater flexibility in dealing with questions of temporary assistance. New reporting requirements have been given to the Industries Assistance Commission and the order and timing of references in the tariff review program was reviewed. The Australian dollar was devalued on 29 November 1976 to assist, amongst other things, in improving the competitiveness of Australian industry. Market sharing arrangements between local production and imports will be considered where necessary as a special measure of short term policy to assist in stabilising activity in sensitive industry sectors, pending full reviews of longer term policies.

Such arrangements will only be introduced after appropriate public inquiry and where such action is in line with our obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or other international treaty commitments. Where market sharing arrangements are applied, the Government considers that, where practicable, the companies benefiting from such action should accept appropriate commitments on pricing policy to be followed during the duration of such assistance. The Government will continue to place proper emphasis on short term policies so as to alleviate economic and social disruption and minimise the erosion of employment opportunities.

Short term policies will be directed at minimising any disruptive effects which might otherwise arise from changes in the structure of industry. The Government is, however, conscious of the problems which short term measures directed towards a particular industry can create elsewhere in the economy and will exercise the closest possible control over such policies, including limitations as to their duration, consistent with the objective of minimising disruption. The Government will pay close attention to the need to reconcile short term and long term policy measures. The change in the pattern of industrial activities in Australia which has been occurring is, however, not just a short term phenomenon. It will have effects through and beyond the period of economic recovery. The White Paper therefore addresses the longer term issues of manufacturing industry in Australia. Our policy guidelines, principles and general approach to longer term industry policy are set out in the White Paper.

In terms of the future growth of manufacturing industry, Australia’s endowment in capital, labour, skills, natural resources and market opportunities would seem to indicate that the best prospects for manufacturing industry development in Australia in the long term lie in activities which are based on Australia’s natural resources, which are innovative in terms of skill or design, which meet specialised local needs, or which have a high degree of natural protection. In today’s circumstances and in the changing environment now being encountered, Australian manufacturing industry, over a reasonable period of time, needs to adjust towards a greater degree of specialisation. As a longer term objective the community will be best served by a manufacturing industry with a structure which requires minimum levels of government support. But future industry policy needs to take account of the existing structure of Australian industry.

The Government’s future approach to longer term industry policy therefore will be concerned principally with dealing with long term changes in the structure of Australian manufacturing industry. Timing and the rate of such change will be important, indeed critical, if disruption caused by the process of change is to be minimised. We are prepared to take special measures, of a recognised temporary nature, to support employment if major changes in the industrial structure threaten unacceptable disruption in times of generally slow economic activity. We shall seek to pursue stable policies which will allow future developments in manufacturing to flow into activities which have good long term prospects for growth. Policies will be needed to meet the special problems of certain industries, within the Government’s overall objective of providing a general climate for economic growth. In recognising the possible need for policies for a small number of sectors, however, the Government is not setting out to establish a list of ‘key industries’ which would be accorded special treatment of an ongoing nature in order to insulate them from pressures of change. Rather the approach envisaged is one of providing support for a sector for a defined period during which real efforts should be made by industry itself to improve its structure and efficiency, thereby helping it to achieve a better and more certain long term outlook.

The Government recognises that protection policies can affect the rate of change in industry and cannot be determined in isolation from the ability of the community to absorb change or accommodate the social consequences of any prospective change. A time of lower economic activity, such as the present, is generally not an appropriate time for reducing protection. In such circumstances a cautious approach to tariff reductions is warranted. Temporary assistance measures may be necessary to avoid disruption and contribute to economic recovery. The Government will also pursue longer term policies which will encourage efficient manufacturing firms to develop and take advantage of new opportunities for growth. Continuing attention will be given to development and extension policies in fields such as research and development, and the Government will continue to monitor the adequacy of existing programs in the areas of export development, investment incentives, small business policies, management efficiency, productivity improvement and industrial financing. These policies will form part of a broader framework of policies aimed at fostering the growth of the economy as a whole so as to create a climate in which new opportunities will exist for business initiatives and employment.

The problems likely to be faced by manufacturing industry in the future will be properly dealt with only if they are understood and appreciated within the community. This will require a greater degree of consultation between the Commonwealth and the State governments and with the many centres of influence and decision making within the community, including management, the trade unions and consumers. New consultation arrangements will be set up by way of the establishment of an Australian Manufacturing Council, extension to industry advisory councils and there will be continued consultations with State governments. A major national conference will be convened at an early date at which governments, industries, trade unions, consumers and others will be invited to take part in presenting and discussing papers on new long term directions for manufacturing industry. To contribute to an increased awareness in the community of the problems of industry, the Department of Industry and Commerce will prepare an annual review of manufacturing industry to report on major developments in industry. The Australian Manufacturing Council will assist in the preparation of this annual review.

The challenges ahead represent a task with which we must all be concerned. Government will play its part in meeting these challenges. We look to management and labour to play their part in a genuine partnership. Productivity must be improved through a greater effort on the part of management and labour to improve their overall efficiency and performance. Wage and price restraint must be pursued because unrealistic increases in wages and prices, especially in those areas of manufacturing most subject to competition from imports will threaten job security. We should not allow short term difficulties to obscure the great long term opportunities ahead of us. If we tackle the present problems with vigour and persistence manufacturing industry will be better placed to help realise these opportunities in the longer term. Mr President, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of the organisations, companies, individuals, governments and departments which presented submissions for consideration in the preparation of the White Paper.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The document read as follows-

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The document which the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Senator Cotton) has circulated is a precis of the actual White Paper. He was good enough earlier this afternoon to give me a copy of the White Paper so that I could look at its contents in a little more depth. I do not claim, of course, to have read the whole document but I have seen sufficient of it to make the comments I propose to make. I note that in the last paragraph of the speech Senator Cotton has just delivered he stated:

If we tackle the present problems with vigour and persistence manufacturing industry will be better placed to help realise these opportunities in the longer term.

Without casting any reflection on Senator Cotton, who I know has a real interest in this subject and who has had a fairly long battle with some of his colleagues to bring forward this White Paper- probably it is not in the form he would have liked -I hope that the White Paper is not representative of just how vigorous and persistent this Government will be with the prob lems facing manufacturing industry. We have waited a long time for this White Paper. The build-up given to it after the very extensive work done by the Committee to Advise on Policies for Manufacturing Industry- the Jackson Committeewhich, of course, was initiated by the Labor Government, has led manufacturing industry and other sectors of the economy to expect a well reasoned document containing some substantial and specific recommendations about the future of Australian manufacturing industry and about the policies which the present Government will devise for that industry. Apparently the delay has resulted in our getting what we originally thought to be a policy elephant; we now really have what might be termed a squeaking mouse.

I regret to say that in reading the White Paper I observed that the Government has avoided making any firm recommendations that would be of substantial use to the manufacturing sector, which is seeking to make investments or is planning for future change. Manufacturing industry had a right to expect relatively firm guidelines in a series of very contentious areas. These areas are structural change especially, what the Government proposes to do specifically about protection and tariff policies, and of course the allocation of resources generally. These issues appear to be dealt with between pages 48 and 54 of the White Paper under the heading ‘Policies and Policy Instruments’. We find that on the one hand the Government purports to have a commitment to efficient resources allocation but, on the other hand, it still wants to pursue some of the policies of short term protection which, as we know from past experience, had some very dubious consequences. On the subject of uncertainty, it was the Minister himself and some of his colleagues who only 2 years ago, when in opposition, said that one of the real problems of the Labor Party in government was that it failed to set out specific recommendations or specific policies on manufacturing industry. We recall that despite those criticisms it was the Labor Government that initiated the Jackson report. It was necessary for that Green Paper to be prepared before we could even commence to think about a White Paper and specific Government policies. At page 33 of the report under the heading ‘The Government ‘s Approach’ ‘Policy Guidelines’ the most specific thing that I can find is what would almost appear to be a lift out of a Party political platform. The White Paper states:

The Government will develop and apply policies on the basis of the general statement of purposes and basic goals formulated by the Committee to Advise on Policies for Manufacturing Industry:

This is what it said:

To improve and promote the well-being of the people of Australia -

Nobody will argue with that- with: equality of opportunity so that all persons, without discrimination, may live a full and satisfying life; full employment; rising and generally enjoyed standards of living, with stability in costs and prices;

I will not go through all the points. The point, I think, is obvious: A White Paper ought to be more specific. Generalisations of that sort read well in a Party’s platform but they are hardly good enough for a White Paper for which we have waited so long. I understand the difficulties that the Minister has had in drafting this report. I appreciate his interest and, I believe, his commitment in this area. But he has been monkeyed around by colleagues in his own government who apparently have been afraid to see the Government make some specific commitment in this area. I regret that having waited so long we see a White Paper which in fact is a great disappointment. It may be that in time the Government will see fit to revise it. Until such time as we have had the opportunity to look at it in more detail, we will have to accept the fact that this is the Government’s statement of policy on the manufacturing industry. I have no doubt that this is not only a disappointment to the Parliament but is also an even bigger disappointment to a very large section of industry in this country which has been holding off, waiting for something specific so that it would know where this Government is taking it. I am afraid we do not see those guidelines spelt out in this White Paper as they should be.

Senator Cotton:

– I think I might forbear from replying to that because a lot of it was a tirade, a farrago of nonsense, and we should resume the debate at a later date.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 1262

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

The PRESIDENT:

– I wish to inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) nominating Senator Tehan to fill the vacancy now existing on the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs.

Motion (by Senator Cotton)- by leaveagreed to:

That Senator Tehan, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Orders, be appointed to fill the vacancy now existing on the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs.

page 1262

REFUGEE POLICY AND MECHANISMS

Ministerial Statement

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

– On behalf of the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle, I seek leave to make a statement relating to Refugee Policy and Mechanisms.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator COTTON:

– I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The statement read as follows-

This statement deals with refugee policy and new arrangements to enable refugee and analogous situations to be dealt with promptly, equitably and effectively. Many of our citizens were once refugees or displaced persons. They have found security and prosperity here and have made a valuable contribution to our country. When we welcomed them, it was hoped that refugees and disabled persons were a temporary post-war phenomenon. Now we have to recognise that this was not so.

There still are many people in many parts of the world who can be called refugees. Unfortunately, crises which lead to the endangering and displacement of human beings have become commonplace and it is only the more catastrophic or immediate of such situations which now make the headlines. Despite the best efforts of people of goodwill and of the international community, we must expect that there will continue to be refugees. Apart from all other considerations, we cannot control the forces of nature. In the past year we have seen the force of natural disasters and their effects for people with associations with Australia.

As a matter of humanity, and in accord with international obligations freely entered into, Australia has accepted a responsibility to contribute toward the solution of world refugee problems. To this end: it has ratified the Convention on the Status of Refugees, it is a member of the Executive Committee of the UNHCR and contributes to the resettlement funds of the UNHCR it recognises the need through its immigration policy to fulfil the legal obligations required by the Convention and to develop special humanitarian programmes for the resettlement of the displaced and/or the persecuted.

These steps, taken as an involved member of the international community, must now be complemented by the adoption and application of an ongoing refugee policy and refugee mechanism. We do injustice to previous Governments if we do not give tribute to Australia’s contribution in resettlement of refugees in the past. We have done this partly to develop our country, partly to respond to situations demanding a humanitarian response. We have done this without an articulated policy. Such a policy is needed.

If we are to seek to act in the interests of refugees themselves and the Australian community, it is necessary to face up to many practical difficulties. Many refugees are not simply migrants beset by a few additional problems. They are often persons who are distressed and disoriented and who need specialised settlement assistance. Uprooted from their familiar surroundings, they may face the shock of cultural dissimilarities, a language barrier and perhaps the trauma of the discovery that their skills or the occupation they followed in their country of origin are not recognised or have no parallel in their country of refuge.

Those who have in the recent past exhorted the Government to accept greater numbers of refugees must take into account the need to coordinate and develop such Government and community resources as will assist not only in the acceptance, but also in the responsible settlement, of refugees.

A fact often forgotten is that many refugees do not want to come to Australia or, at least, they prefer to go to another country where, for instance, they have close relatives or their language is spoken. Moreover, our own capacity to accept refugees is not unlimited. Australia’s present and future capacity to resettle refugees successfully depends on many factors including: the prevailing economic situation, the level of unemployment, the locations within Australia to which refugees wish to go, the background of refugees to be acceptedtheir capacity for early integration or otherwise, the availability of special post arrival serviceslanguage instruction, education, training, accommodation, health and welfare, the numbers of refugees for which voluntary agencies can care.

The Government’s approach to refugees is based on the following four principles:

  1. Australia fully recognises its humanitarian commitment and responsibility to admit refugees for resettlement;
  2. The decision to accept refugees must always remain with the Government of Australia;
  3. Special assistance will often need to be provided for the movement of refugees in designated situations or for their resettlement in Australia; and
  4. It may not be in the interests of some refugees to settle in Australia. Their interests may be better served by resettlement elsewhere. The Australian Government makes an annual contribution to the UNHCR which is the main body associated with such resettlement.

It is the Government’s view that the acceptance and settlement of refugees should be a continuum beginning with a quick and decisive response to international crises and concluding, after what may be a long and difficult path for the refugee, with successful integration into the Australian community. We have to recognise, however, that there can be refugees with the sort of background, education and skills enabling them to fit readily into the Australian scene. It may be a disservice to them to continue to single them out for special treatment as ‘refugees’ after they have arrived in Australia. There are others who may not wish to be labelled as ‘refugees’ over a period.

In situations where refugees are under immediate and dire personal threat, acceptance of people who will face settlement difficulties in Australia is justified. More generally, we have to keep in mind that it may not be in the interests of refugees not under immediate personal threat to accept them for entry to Australia if they will face major long-term settlement problems here. It may be preferable for them to be resettled in another country or to be sustained in a more suitable environment, through the UNHCR. This is the responsible approach based on the long view which takes account not only of the problem but also of the best solution.

Within the range of people who are forced by events to become refugees there will be many variations of circumstances and conditions. Needs will differ. The Government recognises that:

  1. 1 ) there will be people in refugee-type situations who do not fall strictly within the UNHCR mandate or within Convention definitions. Government policy will be sufficiently flexible to enable the extension of this policy, where appropriate, to such people. I shall return to this;
  2. some refugees will be capable of meeting normal migrant criteria concerning family reunion or occupational skills. Where appropriate, such refugees should be selected and resettled in the normal manner under current migrant policies. In accordance with the practice adopted by some other countries, priority in processing will be given to them;
  3. 3 ) other refugees will not fall within the normally acceptable degrees of family relationship or have skills within currently acceptable criteria. Many may have great social adjustments to make in Australia. In offering resettlement to its fair share of these, Australia should first seek those who have relatives in Australia or associations with Australia and those who will be able to make the necessary social adjustments;
  4. the interests of those refugees who, it is assessed, would have extreme difficulty in adjusting to the Australian environment may not be best served by migration to Australia but be better served by action by the UNHCR or other agencies to resettle them in a more compatible environment. I would stress that the Government readily accepts that there will be people in urgent need of resettlement who will have major problems of resettlement in Australia. It would be inconsistent with the humanitarian nature of refugee resettlement not to accept some people in this category;
  5. 5 ) there will also be refugees, some of working age, who will be unable to qualify for selection under these refugee guidelines because of physical, mental or social handicaps. Provided that appropriate institutional care is available, Australia will be prepared in principle to accept refugees in this category. No specific quota will be set but each case will be considered in the light of Australia’s capacity to provide adequate care;
  6. through its ratification of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, Australia has accepted certain obligations in relation to people covered by the Convention. Situations arise from time to time in which people such as those who enter Australia illegally (e.g. as deserting seamen) or who become prohibited immigrants (e.g. by the expiry of temporary permits) claim to be refugees entitled to the protection of the Convention and in consequence request permission to remain permanently in Australia. A standing interdepartmental body will be established to evaluate such claims and to make recommendations on them to me. It is proposed that the Office of the UNHCR will be involved as necessary in these deliberations.

To enable Australia to respond quickly to designated refugee situations the Government has decided that new mechanisms will be introduced. These are as follows:

  1. 1 ) The Government will consider proposals from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for designating refugee situations and appropriate responses to them. The designated refugee situations will be kept under regular review. Where it is decided that the Australian response to a refugee situation should be in the form of contributions to the UNHCR or other agencies to resettle or temporarily maintain refugees outside Australia, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will continue to determine the modalities and amount of assistance.
  2. A Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Refugees comprising senior officers of the Departments of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Chairman), Foreign Affairs, Prime Minister and Cabinet, Employment and Industrial Relations, Social Security, Finance, Health and Education with other Departments and the Public Service Board to be coopted as necessary, will be established.

This Committee will: advise the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on the capacity for accepting refugees, consult annually, and otherwise as necessary, with voluntary agencies regarding the numbers they would accept for resettlement, recommend co-ordination for arrival and immediate resettlement, regularly review the intake of refugees against the capacity of resources in this country to ensure successful resettlement.

  1. Voluntary agencies are to be encouraged to participate and indicate periodically, or as the need arises, the extent of assistance they can provide. Early consideration will be given to those refugees who are the subject of adequate sponsorship by appropriate voluntary bodies. In this respect there is a continuing flow of refugees in small groups or as individuals brought to attention by the UNHCR and /or by voluntary agencies in Australia. Provided satisfactory sponsorship is available, a small number of such refugees could be accepted on a case by case basis by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Some agencies expect they may be able to maintain refugees approved for entry to Australia for 12 months after arrival here. This will be explored.
  2. It is proposed to resume the practice of posting an Australian officer to a position in the UNHCR in Geneva and to seek to re-establish formal relations with the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration through observer status.
  3. The Refugee Unit of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs will be strengthened. This will enable prompt and efficient responses by experienced officers to refugee situations in which it is decided that Australia should participate. We now have considerable experience with the task force approach. The capacity to respond to refugee situations in this and other ways will be developed.
  4. The first step taken under this new policy will be to locate staff in Thailand temporarily to make a continuing contribution to the resolution of refugee problems there. There will be a regular intake of IndoChinese refugees from Thailand and nearby areas at a level consistent with our capacity as a community to resettle them. In this operation we shall be relying greatly on the co-operation of the UNHCR, other Governments, especially the Thai Government, and voluntary agencies in Australia.

It is clear from the foregoing that the object of the Government’s initiative is a declaration of a comprehensive refugee policy and the establishment of adminstrative machinery needed to put it into effect. It will enable us to respond to the needs of those who are displaced, without the constraint of technical definition.

The comprehensive nature of this overall approach should not be seen as limiting Australia’s options in particular situations. A refugee policy must be capable of coping with crises which arise suddenly and often unexpectedly. It must be cognisant of the fact that in such situations human beings have human needs which are intensified by conditions of danger and distress.

Over the past 30 years, Australia has developed an international reputation for resettlement. It reacted to the plight of displaced persons in Europe immediately after World War II and to the consequences of various events in Eastern Europe, of which the most notable were the Soviet repression of movements towards national independence in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Australia has played, and is continuing to play, a responsible part in the resettlement of distressed persons and refugees from the Lebanon and Indo-China.

I believe that there would be few in this House who would not support a commitment for Australia to play the most effective role possible in refugee settlement. The Government is committed to this view.

It is in the belief that there is a community willingness to assist the dispossessed and displaced from overseas in a sensible and realistic way to seek sanctuary and a new life in Australia, that I commend this statement to the Parliament and the people of Australia.

Senator MULVIHILL (New South Wales)by leave- Anybody who has read the Minister’s statement and related it to chapter 5 of the Green Paper on immigration would realise the complexities involved. The statement leaves a number of questions unanswered. In the first instance, it does not refer to our capacity to take political refugees and whether they will affect our overall annual intake of migrants in a given year. It is equally true that concern has been expressed by the ethnic communities as to the number of people designated as political refugees and as to whether the number of people allowed into Australia in a year for family reunions will be affected. This will be borne out in chapter 5 of the Green Paper. There are other areas in which the Government and the Minister have to be firm. I say this with no carping attitude. We may have a South East Asian fixation on what are termed ‘political refugees’. Some Asians who have been dispossessed by African governments have the choice, with a British passport, of going to Britain. Some Vietnamese have the choice of going to the United States of America. When they insist on coming here with other members of their family they reduce the opportunity for people who have no avenue to come to Australia except as strictly political refugees.

Whatever our policy is for the future we cannot afford to keep looking at new areas. We have to look back at areas which have suffered political oppression. Although we have done a reasonably good job in a number of areas, as yet we have not taken up the slack this year on the rising number of people in Latin America, Uruguay, Chile and the Argentine who have come out of gaols and have been denied employment. If we are to be mercenary about it, let us remember that many of them have considerable trade skills. The Minister refers at page 7 to a standing committee of departmental experts. I am not cavilling at that but I should like to feel that some of the Latin American clubs, the Cypriot Brotherhood and Lebanese groups would be consulted. We have improved our methods. I know that when the Turkish invasion of Cyprus occurred the Cypriot Brotherhood was a valuable link between what the Government wanted to do and the actual situation in Australia.

I feel that I should refer to some of the officers concerned. I was pleased that Mr Brian Murray was given a high position. I pay tribute to his role and to the role of some of his younger colleagues. On one occasion when Senator James McClelland was the Minister, a seminar was conducted with the World Council of Churches, the Catholic Church, the Quakers and other people. Officers who had flown in from distant places were dedicated enough to be there the next day after a minimum of sleep to give us reports so that we could make decisions. I believe that while we have people of such high calibre in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and other offices the Government will make reasonable decisions.

I simply strike a note of warning. First, I should like to know at an early date how we relate the ratio of political refugees to our overall total of migrants on an annual basis. Secondly, I make a very strong plea that our brothers in Latin American countries who have been going through a vicious political oppression are not neglected and that we do not keep looking ahead. We have to look back at some of those countries. It is not good enough to say: ‘We took 600 Chileans last year, let the rest of them battle on’. In turn, if Australia and Canada are bearing the major responsibility in this humanitarian area I should like to see some European countries which have a fairly high standard of living make even higher donations for the sustenance of refugee organisations than they are making at present. This is not the time for the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) to answer the points I have raised but 1 have no doubt that the Minister will read these statements.

I notice that the Minister refers in the statement to the situation of people who desert a ship and to a committee to assess whether they are technically political refugees. Some years agoand my colleague Senator Georges hammered this effectively- when there was a military junta in Greece there was a very high number of Greek seamen seeking political asylum. That was one instance. In fairness I think it may have been the late Senator Greenwood or a Liberal Government of that era that ratified the Refugee Seamen’s Convention. I just question the verbiage on page 6 of the statement. It is as though the Government implies that every seaman wants to stay in Australia. A lot of them want to continue their calling as seamen. Under the Refugee Seamen ‘s Convention they can be given papers to permit them to continue on another ship under another flag. I feel the wording in this statement is not quite correct.

The Refugee Seamen’s Convention, to which Australia was a signatory, was not merely a sort of blotting paper to absorb people coming into the country. It was to let seamen continue their calling should they run foul of the country of their birth and we would give them papers, probably akin to United Nations citizenship, to enable them to carry on as seamen. I hope that these observations will be noted by the Government. Perhaps we could have quarterly reports instead of having to wait for an Estimates Committee report. Sometimes there is a preponderance of one ethnic group, with certain rivalry and jealousy from other groups. I repeat that the watchword may be open-handedness and I hope that that will be adhered to.

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

– It is always my wish to pay courtesy to my colleagues in the Senate but I think that sometimes these limitations are rather heavily stretched. I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator COTTON:

-I move:

Debate (on motion by Senator Mulvihill) adjourned.

page 1266

INCOME TAX LEGISLATION

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Cotton) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Income Tax

Assessment Amendment Bill 1977 and the Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 1977 being put in the one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

page 1267

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Readings

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

– I move:

Income Tax Assessment Bill 1977

I will first read the second reading speech on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1977. This Bill will amend the income tax law in several important respects and, in so doing, will give effect to the first stage of company tax indexation. The major proposal contained in the Bill is the introduction of a special deduction which in effect adjusts the value at which the cost of trading stocks is brought to account for income tax purposes. As the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) foreshadowed in the Budget Speech, and explained at greater length in his statement of 9 December 1976, the Government has decided that the impact of inflation on trading stock financing should be taken into account in assessing the income tax liabilities of business enterprises. The new deduction proposed in the Bill will provide very significant income tax relief for firms and companies carrying trading stocks for business purposes. The estimated cost to revenue next financial year of the new deduction is around $360m- equivalent to an across the board rate reduction for all companies of 5 ‘A percentage points.

It is important to understand that the deduction will have a differential impact on businesses according to the degree to which they are adversely affected by inflation and this is, of course, the principal reason why the scheme contained in the Bill is far more equitable than an across the board rate reduction. Under existing income tax rules, businesses are paying taxes out of what amounts to no more than paper profits and this has limited, and in many cases depressed, the general level of business activity within the economy. To put it another way, existing legislation has led to a substantial erosion of the capital base of the free enterprise sector.

The changes being made by the Governmentchanges that our predecessors in office refused to make- will give to the business sector, for the first time, a significant measure of protection against the effects of inflation. The provisions contained in the Bill are in line with the comprehensive description given in the Treasurer’s statement of 9 December 1976 and are explained in detail in a memorandum I have arranged to be circulated for the information of honourable senators. In this introductory speech I will, therefore, refer only to the principal features of the scheme.

For a continuing business, a special deduction related to the taxation value of specified trading stocks on hand at the beginning of the year of income is to be allowed, commencing with assessments based on income derived during the 1976-77 income year. The deduction in assessments will be ascertained by applying to the value of the trading stock- not being a value higher than the cost of the stock- one-half of the percentage increase in the goods component of the consumer price index measured from the June quarter of the year preceding the year of income to the June quarter of the year of income. For 1 976-77, therefore, the relevant increase will be that occurring from the June quarter of 1 976 to the June quarter of 1977. Most classes of trading stock, including livestock, required to be brought to account under the general trading stock provisions of the income tax law will be eligible for the deduction. The deduction will not, however, be available in respect of land, buildings, construction work in progress, consumable stores, spare parts, shares, debentures, public securities or other choses in action or animals for use in sporting or recreational activities or for domestic purposes.

Special arrangements are to apply where a new business is commenced during an income year or where a business changes hands during an income year. A proportionate deduction will be allowable for the part of the first year in which a new business is carried on. As there will be no trading stock on hand at the commencement of this first year, the deduction for the year is to be calculated in respect of two-thirds of the value of stock on hand at the end of the year. Where a business changes hands during a year of income, the deduction allowable will be apportioned between the vendor and the purchaser according to the period of the year in which each carried on the business. In such a case, the deduction will generally be measured by reference to the value of the trading stock at the beginning of the year in which the change of ownership occurs or the value at the date of sale, whichever is the less. Where, as in the case of a reorganisation of a company group, a business is transferred from one company to an associated company, the latter company will, if both companies elect, be entitled to the deduction otherwise allowable to the vendor company in addition to any entitlement of its own. As a general rule, a deduction will not be available for an income year in which a business ceases operations. However, where a business is terminated on the death or bankruptcy of a proprietor, an appropriate part year deduction will be allowable.

To prevent the use of the deduction to obtain unwarranted tax advantages, safeguarding provisions will apply to reduce deductions otherwise available where there is a permanent reduction in the scale of operations of a business or a business is holding an unnecessarily high level of stocks. Where a permanent reduction in the level of business operations occurs, the deduction will be based on the closing instead of the opening stock. Where the Commissioner of Taxation considers that, with a view to maximising the stock valuation deduction, a business is holding an unnecessarily high level of stocks, he will be empowered, subject to the usual objections and appeals provisions, to base the deduction on a lower value of trading stock. As foreshadowed in the Treasurer’s statement of 9 December 1976, the Bill also contains other provisions to ensure that the new stock adjustment deduction is not deliberately exploited for tax avoidance purposes. To this end, special provisions are being enacted to combat arrangements between parties not acting at arm’s length for the acquisition by one from the other of trading stocks at inflated prices. Contrived arrangements of this kind can, of course, result in overstatement of deductions properly allowable for trading stock purposes as well as of the new deductions in respect of opening stock values. For this reason, the safeguarding provisions will have effect both for purposes of the new deduction and for the general purposes of the income tax law. The provisions will enable an arm’s length price to be ascribed to the trading stock for the income tax purposes in the assessments of both the purchaser and the vendor.

An associated measure, directed to the same end, will qualify the circumstances in which parties may elect under sub-section 36a (2) of the Income Tax Assessment Act to have trading stock transferred between them at cost price instead of market price where, as in the case of partnership formations, there is a partial change in the ownership of stock. Since the Bill was introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) in another place on 2 1 April 1 977 it has been put to the Government from a number of sources that these measures, as the Bill then stood, would have involved an unfairly retrospective change in the law as the measures were to have applied from the commencement of the 1976-77 income year. It has been argued that the new provisions should not be permitted to upset arrangements entered into before the introduction of the legislation. The Government has decided that, in order to remove any element of retrospectivity, the measures I have referred to are to apply only to arrangements entered into on or after 2 1 April 1977. This decision will in no way inhibit the Commissioner of Taxation in contesting the validity under existing law of tax avoidance schemes entered into prior to 2 1 April.

I take this opportunity to foreshadow an amendment to the Bill that the Government will be moving at a later stage to overcome some new and boldly advertised tax avoidance arrangements that have been devised to circumvent the limitation being placed on sub-section 36a (2) to which I have referred. Under those arrangements, all the issued shares in a number of private companies holding accumulated profits are acquired, ostensibly for share-trading purposes, by a partnership of which some members are individuals in receipt of high incomes. The accumulated profits are then paid by way of dividend to a separate company, the shares in which are later sold by the partnership for full value. Section 36a is then invoked to ensure that no taxable profit arises on the sale of the company. Meanwhile the shares in the other private companies are also sold. Since these companies have already been stripped of their profits, a taxdeductible loss is created, with the end result that substantial amounts of other income earned by individual members of the partnership are wholly freed from tax.

The amendment will preclude an election being made under the section in respect of transfers of interests in company shares and securities or other choses in action. The amendment proposed will not, however, withdraw any rights to lodge elections under section 36a in relation to transfers of interests in such property that took place before today. Before going on to other aspects of the Bill, I wish to refer to other representations that have been made to the Government since the release of the Treasurer’s statement of 9 December last on the new deduction in respect of trading stock. Without exception, these representations have been on matters that were canvassed thoroughly by the Government before the Treasurer’s statement was made. The Government has carefully reexamined its proposals in the light of the representations and is convinced that there should be no substantial departure from the lines of action set out in the 1976-77 Budget Speech and the December statement.

I turn now to other provisions of the Bill that cover several proposals, most of which have already been announced. The new CRAFT scheme- the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-Time Training- provides rebates for employers in respect of wage costs incurred in respect of apprentices who undertake full time off-the-job training. The Bill provides that these rebates are to be exempt from income tax. The Bill provides also that the payment of special allowances to apprentices under the scheme are to be subject to pay-as-you-earn deductions in the same way as similar allowances in the nature of income.

Another matter dealt with in the Bill is the system for the collection of company tax by instalments. The temporary suspension of the system from early in 1976, a time when the corporate sector faced serious liquidity and cash flow problems, relieved companies from obligations to pay the third quarterly instalment in 1975-76 and all 3 instalments that otherwise would have been payable in 1976-77. The improvement in company profitability, and business conditions generally, has diminished substantially the need for this kind of interim assistance.

In January, the Treasurer announced a number of fiscal policy decisions, including a decision that, in accordance with the Government’s intention when company instalments were temporarily suspended, the system of collection by instalments would come back into operation in 1977-78. Re-introduction of the instalment system will contribute towards evening out swings in liquidity in the economy within any financial year and thereby add to the effectiveness of monetary management.

An associated Bill-the Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 1 977- will provide authority for the resumption of instalment collections in that year on the basis laid down in the Income Tax Assessment Act. In its present form, the Assessment Act authorises the Commissioner of Taxation to call upon a company to pay 3 instalments of tax plus a balancing payment in 1977-78 and each subsequent year in respect of tax on its income of the preceding year. Amendments proposed by this Bill will reduce to two the number of instalments that a company may be called upon to pay in 1977-78 and set the earliest due dates for payment of the instalments as 15 November 1977 and 15 February 1978, respectively. The amount of the instalments will be determined on the same basis that applied before the temporary suspension of the scheme, and any company obliged to pay one or both of them will not be required to pay the balance of tax assessed on 1976-77 income before 30 April 1978.

The Bill also proposes to make an amendment to the averaging system applying to primary producers. At present, taxable income in excess of $ 16,000 is taxed at general rates and is also taken in as part of the average income calculations for the year in which it is so taxed and the next 4 years. Commencing with assessments of tax based on 1976-77 incomes, it is proposed to exclude from the averaging calculations any amount by which the taxable income of any year within the averaging period exceeds $16,000. Another provision of the Bill will amend the income tax law to ensure that all pensions paid under the superannuation arrangements for members of the Defence Force are liable to tax.

The need for the amendment, which was announced on 15 April 1977, arises from a recent decision by the High Court involving an invalidity pension paid under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Scheme to a former officer of the Navy who was prematurely retired as the result of an accident sustained in the course of duty. The High Court held that the pension concerned fell within the scope of provisions of the law which exempt from tax pensions similar in nature to exempt repatriation disability pensions. In a setting where tax is levied on pensions paid under other occupational superannuation schemes, the Government thinks it only equitable that all DFRB and DFRDB pensions be taxed and the Bill contains provisions to this effect. An amendment is also proposed to the gift provisions of the income tax law to provide for the deductibility of gifts to the Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Trust for Young Australians.

Finally a technical amendment is being made in connection with the rights of a tax agent to apply for a review of cancellation of registration as a tax agent. The amendment will reflect the changed review arrangements that have applied since 1 July 1976 under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. Detailed explanations of the provisions of this and the related Bill are given in the explanatory memorandum of which I spoke earlier.

Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 1977

I turn now to the Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 1977. Technical provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act, which govern the system for collection of company tax by instalments, authorise collections in a particular financial year only if a rating Act provides that instalments of tax are payable by a company in respect of its income of the preceding year. This Bill will amend the Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Act 1976, which declared rates of tax payable for the 1976-77 financial year, by including a new section to provide that instalments of tax are payable by a company in respect of its 1976-77 income.

The amendment will implement the Government’s decision to resume collection of company tax by instalments in the 1977-78 financial year, on the basis that I explained when introducing the associated Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill. I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1270

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1976-77

Second Reading

Debate resumed on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator Mulvihill had moved by way of amendment:

At end of motion, add ‘, but the Senate is of the opinion that-

the slashing of government spending is part of an inept economic strategy which has led to a decline in the standard of living of all Australians; and

there is an urgent need for alternative policies of promoting a consumer led recovery by cuts in indirect taxes and appropriate stimulatory expenditure on job creation and manpower training programs, all done in a context of not increasing inflation by

phasing out the more extravagant business tax concessions,

increasing the money supply but not beyond the rate of inflation plus growth, and

instituting a more vigorous bond selling program.’

Senator SIBRAA (New South Wales) (8.49- Before the suspension of the sitting, I was speaking on some matters of foreign policy. I was talking about Indonesia, our nearest neighbour bar one. I said that relations with Indonesia will be of critical importance to Australia in the last part of the 20th century. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Witners, has promised that we will finish the debate on East Timor before the Parliament rises for the winter recess, I do not think it is too late for the Senate to refer the matter to a parliamentary committee, or, alternatively, to go along with the proposition that has been put forward by Senators Missen and Bonner and refer the matter to the Senate Standing Committee on foreign Affairs and Defence. I think that that would be a much better attitude. The Australian Parliament would be dealing with the matter and we would not be getting our information from a United States Congressional inquiry.

I wish now to turn to some domestic matters. Firstly I will deal with education. Apparently the appropriation for education coming down in the August Budget will be less than even the Government’s harshest critics could have imagined. Not only will there be no real growth in spending on education but apparently spending will be cut back even further than last year’s figures.

Senator SIBRAA:

– We will see, senator. I am prepared to wait until the Budget. In the field of social security, the Government’s attitude continues to be one of niggardly begrudging handouts. Australians no longer seem t01 have the right to social security. With the passing of time it is becoming more like charity. While we are on these issues I think we ought to look at health services. Spending on public hospitals has been continually cut back. I note that there is uncertainty as to the Government’s policy on private health care in the immediate future and in the long term, there are threats of withdrawal of subsidies to private hospitals.

Senator Walters:

-What rot!

Senator SIBRAA:

– There is talk of many private hospitals being forced to close. The honourable senator just said: ‘What rot’! I think it was on AM this morning that a representative of private hospitals was asked what would happen if the funds to private hospitals were cut. I pose this question now: What would happen if funds to private hospitals were cut? The spokesman said that 25 per cent more patients would have to attend public hospitals. Public hospitals just could not cope with an increase of 25 per cent. Apparently the spokesman for the private hospitals thinks that there is a possibility that this will occur.

I also want to deal with the question of federalism. This was the area in which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and Senator Carrick promised us a new era. Federal-State relations, it was said, would never be better than under the Fraser administration. Instead, what have we got? Federal-State relations at the moment are nothing short of disastrous. In transport we have seen continual wrangling between State and federal authorities and State and federal Ministers. The States are continuously presented with a fait accompli. Local governments are also upset with federal decisions such as the recent decision to merge the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads and the Bureau of Transport Economics. We have to look at the cut-back of growth areas such as Albury-Wodonga and Bathurst-Orange. This was one of the Government’s first economy measures. The growth centres were promised additional funds. Now the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) has virtually said that the growth centre program is at an end. He has blamed the State governments. Surely the State governmentsI refer to Victoria and New South Wales- are not the people to blame. These governments have been carrying on this program for the last 12 or 18 months. Without federal funding these governments will not be able to carry on these programs. The growth centres will die through lack of federal funding. I think that we could go on and look through a whole number of federal activities and find many examples of this Government’s lack of compassion.

If the Budget is as predicted I think it might be able to be said that this Government has proven to be one of the most disastrous in our short national history in the field of social welfare. I hope that statement is wrong but all the indications we have been given so far seem to be leading that way.

I want now to deal specifically with a couple of areas in which the national Government has responsibility. The first one came before Estimates Committee A, of which I am a member, which dealt with the Department of Administrative Services. I refer to electoral matters. Recently Professor Don Aitken, Professor of Politics at Macquarie University, suggested a national referendum day for Australia. I think this proposal merits some scrutiny. Some attention should be given to the process by which the Australian Constitution can be changed. I think that Professor Aitken ‘s proposal should be welcomed at the very least because it breathes fresh air into one of the most vital areas of the democratic process. I think this is especially true at a time when we have seen all the referendum issues supported by a large majority of Australians. A national referendum day for consideration of a proposal or proposals on which both major parties agree would be something that would benefit the Australian community.

Just on 12 months ago in debate on Appropriation Bills I raised the matter of electoral reform. I think that we, as a Senate, should be looking at a number of things. I think that we should be looking at improved methods of voting. We should be looking at machinery matters. We should be looking at computerised voting as happens in western Europe. We should be looking at voting by means of machines as in the United States. All these things would lead to improved methods of counting. We would get earlier results and the elimination of doubts and uncertainties over a period of weeks about what sort of national or State government we would have. I think one has to look only at the United States, Great Britain or western Europe to see how quickly results are able to be obtained. In most cases the results are usually obtained within 24 hours. Considering the large numbers of people voting in those countries it is easy to realise that our electoral system is archaic and out of date.

We have to look back only to 1 975 when many of the House of Representatives and Senate seats were in doubt to see how long the count took. I know that in New South Wales the Senate count for the position with which I was involved took approximately 2 months from the date of the ballot. I think that everybody here would agree that that was too long. I think that most people in this chamber would agree on some of the methods with which we could get over this situation. I am referring to increased deposits to take into account the inflation that has occurred. I think that probably we would all agree that we need more nominators from different federal electorates or all federal electorates within a State to really prove that a Senate candidate has support throughout the State. I think we would all agree that perhaps we should be voting for a lower number of people in a Senate ballot. The situation which we have had twice now in New South Wales, where people have had to fill in 70-odd squares the first time and 50-odd squares the next time, has turned the method of election into somewhat of a lottery. 1 think that when an election for the Senate is turned into some sort of lottery the end result is a downgrading of the standard of this chamber. We have also seen the election in New South Wales that went through May and June 1976 and the Tasmanian election that took place in December 1976. These are examples of ballots that took weeks and weeks to finalise.

There are pressing reasons, therefore, on the basis of this evidence, for overhauling the methods by which Australian cast their ballots. I know that in New South Wales, under a Liberal Government, there already have been some improvements. In the last State election in New South Wales we saw some of these improvements. One was that the polls closed at 6 o’clock. I do not know whether any honourable senators here worked on the referendum last Saturday. Any who did would agree that there is a very good case for the polling places to close at 6 o’clock, especially for elections held in the winter months.

I think there are also pressing reasons, best evidenced recently by allegations of Central Intelligence Agency money coming into Australian political parties and into Australian political organisations, for this national Parliament to take a long and serious look at public funding of political parties. As a former State official of a party I have seen State and Federal officials of all parties go on television and deny allegations about where money came from. It always amuses me. I defy any State or Federal official of any party to be able to work out where every donation comes from. Of course there are ways to launder money, to make it impossible to know where donations come from, especially during the rush of an election campaign. Virtually every western industrial democracy has some form of public funding for political party campaigning and/or administration of the party. This ranges from sophisticated systems like that in West Germany, to a developing system like that in the United States, or the more elementary system that is just beginning to be evolved in the United Kingdom.

As I said, in the United States this system is just starting. People are able to go into the election commission office in Washington- I went there myself- and for 10c a copy get a list of all the donations being made to any of the candidates who are running in the primary elections for the Presidency of the United States. For 10c a copy I was able to learn of donations as small as $10. The lists were being printed every day. The electoral commission office in Washington was filled with members of the Press and members of the public who were perusing the information to find out from where campaign donations were coming. I know that people will say that it is only for the presidency of the United States; it is a separate question. I believe that in time there will be public funding throughout the electoral system in the United States. Virtually every advanced industrial nation acknowledges the importance of political parties to the democratic system. Those countries provide financial support to enable parties to go about their normal affairs and meet their campaign requirements. I think it is high time that this country did the same. Certainly one of the things that we can do for a start is to set up a committee such as the Houghton committee in Great Britain. Such a committee could begin examining what we could do.

It is important to note- and it is pleasing to note- that the conditions for parliamentarians and the staff of parliamentarians are being looked at by the Remuneration Tribunal at the moment. I hope- I think most members of my Party hope- the Tribunal will come down with realistic assessments of the salary which national parliamentarians should receive and of their working conditions. Senator Douglas McClelland pointed out to me tonight that section 8 ( 1 ) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act provides that the Tribunal should report to this Parliament by 29 June. I hope that we can get that report before us shortly. When one compares the situation which confronts our parliamentarians with, for example, the situation in the United States, one would say that there is a great need for rethinking our attitudes to parliamentarians, their duties, their obligations and the work loads that they are expected to carry. I commend to all honourable senators that they read again a speech made in this chamber not very long ago by Senator Baume on the work load now being placed on members of the national Parliament. I believe it was an excellent speech. I hope the Remuneration Tribunal has a copy of that speech and has read it. I think that our conditions and what we are expected to do are summed up extremely well in that speech. I believe it is essential that the entire system under which the national Parliament functions- the simple mechanics of it- should be subject to continual review.

I wish to make some comment on the matter of industrial relations, because this is a perennial subject of debate in Australian politics. Now it seems that the issue will intrude into our foreign relations, particularly with countries such as Japan. We have seen statements about this recently. I believe that there is no doubt that the present Government is attempting to use the Australian trade union movement as a scapegoat for some of its failures in the economic sphere. Union bashing has become quite the thing. We do not find any Red bogies or phoney threats from our north any more as diversionary tactics. We see constant union bashing. This has been said in the chamber before. No doubt it will be said subsequent to my speech tonight. There is no doubt that this Government has embarked on a conscious campaign, through the trade practices legislation, through mooted amendments to the Public Service Act and through amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, to shackle the trade union movement in Australia. I believe that the trade union movement has served Australia well for generations. It has been in the forefront of democracy in Australia. It has fought long and assiduously to improve the conditions of the average working man and woman.

This Government, in its campaign of vilification of the unions, has been caught on the wrong foot, especially in recent weeks, because it has been seen to be provoking and prolonging disputes in which representatives of the labour movement, especially the executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the executives of the State Trades and Labor Councils, I believe, have acted in the role of industrial peacemakers. I think this was best demonstrated in recent disputes such as the petrol tanker drivers dispute in Melbourne and the air traffic controllers dispute. I referred to those earlier in my remarks when I replied to Senator Wright. I do not believe that threats of gaol, threats of bringing in the Royal Australian Air Force or threats of a strong Industrial Relations Bureau Bill would have had any effect on the air traffic controllers dispute. It is obvious from the comments of the Arbitration Commission and the national employer bodies that people in these institutions realise that the country does not need or want industrial warfare at this time.

The Government attempted to freeze wages while letting prices continually spiral. This was rejected by the Arbitration Commission. The ACTU put a plan for a national economic conference to discuss tax cuts as a trade off for wage restraint. It received a sympathetic hearing from the Commission, but that was all. Therefore this Government’s uncompromising attitude to wage freezing is rejected. I ask: Why should not it be rejected in these circumstances? In recent months it has been the trade union movement that has sought to reach industrial peace. It has been the trade union movement that has continually made concessions. It has been the trade union movement that has continually sought negotiation. This is best evidenced by the negotiations that took place about the IRB. Yet earlier tonight in this debate Senator Wright virtually said that it was a pity that the Government did not go ahead with the IRB in its original form so we could have had a showdown. That showdown would have been at the cost of all Australians, whether or not they were members of a trade union. I believe that it has been through common sense, firstly by the trade unions and, I must say, by the Minister concerned, Mr Street, that we have had this series of negotiations and compromises. I believe it has become readily apparent that the Australian public is growing disenchanted with this Government. The people will reject it at the earliest available opportunity, as the results of Saturday have proven. That could be at a half Senate election which must be held before June of next year.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I am not a crystal ball gazer, as Senator Sibraa seems to be. I will not pre-empt what the Budget may hold for us. Senator Sibraa seems to know more than I do about the Government’s intentions in respect of education. I can assure him that the Government certainly appreciates the importance of allocating sufficient funds for education. The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) has given assurances that it is not his intention to reduce in that area to any extent. On the contrary, he has shown that his interest in education is such that there has been an increase in funds since this Government came to office.

I was interested in Senator Sibraa ‘s remarks about the Government’s ‘union bashing’. I reject completely that term. I believe that this Government recognised immediately it same to office that it was necessary to restore the credibility of the trade union movement in Australia to a level which it ought to hold in the community. I think the trade union movement in Australia had sunk to a very low ebb. One of the first things we did when we came to office was to introduce legislation requiring compulsory secret ballots for the election of union officials, because we believed that this would encourage trade unionists to take a greater interest in their union leadership and would ensure that more responsible leaders were brought into a position in which they could protect the interests of trade union members throughout Australia. I am afraid that officials in some unions seem to delight in militant action rather than in being prepared to undertake sensible negotiations, particularly at a time when Australia cannot afford the luxury of strikes which disrupt industry generally and which overflow into areas that affect innocent trade unionists. As far as I am concerned, the sooner we do what the people expect us to do- that is to continue our efforts to restore the credibility of the trade union movement- the better it will be for all Australians.

Senator Sibraa:

– The air traffic controllers had a secret ballot.

Senator JESSOP:

– I must say that I had some sympathy with the air traffic controllers because of their protracted negotiations with the Public Service Board. I think there is room for examination of the Public Service Board in an attempt to accelerate such negotiations. I have no hesitation in making that recommendation because the public was certainly not completely happy about the speed with which those negotiations were conducted. So I am not absolving the Public Service Board from some responsibility in that matter. It seems to me that the people of Australia are very anxious that the Government take action to protect their interests, particularly in areas of national concern. Those areas would be fairly easy to define. I would suggest that we could establish that energy is an area of national interest. The oil refineries throughout Australia seem to be plagued with wildcat strikes. In areas of national interest we ought to be looking at the introduction of compulsory secret ballots as a condition of a legal strike. Reverting to the air traffic controllers, I wonder whether it was a mistakeI thought it was at the time- to absorb into the Department of Transport the former Department of Civil Aviation. That in many ways was a retrograde step. The Government ought to be considering whether it would be advisable to establish a statutory authority to deal with civil aviation in Australia. I think that would be preferable to the present system.

I want to mention one or two other matters. I refer to the Appropriation Bill, and particularly to the Attorney-General’s Department. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) will remember that I asked a question of him some weeks ago concerning the possibility of introducing uniform firearms legislation throughout Australia. I asked the question because I was very concerned about the increase in crimes involving the use of firearms. It followed an incident in Adelaide in which 2 young policemen were shot. One was critically injured and I think he is still in the intensive care ward of the Adelaide Hospital. The other young policeman was also badly injured. The incident revived my interest in this subject. I had raised the matter when Senator Murphy was Attorney-General in the former Labor Government. I believe that police throughout Australia ought to be afforded the protection of laws that would prevent irresponsible people from possessing firearms or that would at least minimise the chances of irresponsible people being able to purchase firearms.

I have been told about the situation in other countries. For example, in West Germany I think the law still requires that a person be given an oral or written examination designed to assess his capacity and to discover whether he is a fit person to own a firearm. A member of the Australian Clay Target Association has suggested to me that it might be a good idea to test people who wish to own firearms in the recognition of birds and animals in order to prevent the slaughter of some of our protected fauna. I would even go further and suggest that it might be a good idea to apply a psychological test as a further precaution before a person is permitted to buy a firearm. I say that quite seriously because it was drawn to my attention not long ago that a young lad of 16 years of age purchased a firearm and committed suicide about an hour later. These are very serious matters and I believe they ought to be given very serious thought by the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott).

I wrote to the Attorney-General in South Australia and also to the Police Commissioner in that State. The reply I received from Mr Harold Salisbury, Commissioner of Police in South Australia, stated:

Thank you for your letter of 2 May 1977 letting me know of the question you raised in the Senate about the need for uniform fire-arm legislation.

This same subject has come up for discussion at annual conferences of Commissioners of Police on a number of occasions over the years. However, nothing very concrete has so far emerged from these discussions.

At a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for police held in Sydney on 21 August 1970, a sub-committee was formed to draw up a draft Bill for consideration by the various States. I believe that this subcommittee was allowed to lapse because ‘difficulty was experienced in settling in detail principles which might reasonably be expected to be acceptable to all States’.

At the recent Commissioners Conference in April 1977, the question of uniformity was raised again. It was decided that the Conference Secretariat would summarise all the sentiments that were expressed and send the summary to all Commissioners who would then agree on a line to present at the next conference between State Police Ministers and Police Commissioners in the hope that some constructive argument and plan could be put forward to the Federal Government.

From our point of view, we accept the need for uniform fire-arm laws throughout Australia, but we do not believe that this will ever be achieved through independent action by the various States without a model Bill from which to work.

He concludes:

We share your concern for the regulation of fire-arms in the community and support any action you take to bring about uniformity.

I think that highlights the importance of my suggestion. I hope that the Attorney-General will renew his efforts in perhaps providing the State Ministers with model legislation for their consideration at the next conference of police ministers and commissioners.

I mention one other matter. The Stuart Highway has been the subject of comment in South Australia and the Northern Territory over a number of years. It has been of particular concern to the member for the Northern Territory, Mr Sam Calder. Senator Kilgariff also since he came into the Senate has been very active in his representations. You, Mr Acting Deputy President, have also expressed interest in this subject. As a result of efforts that were made in South Australia not long ago a report was presented to the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) containing certain conclusions with respect to the sealing of that highway. It is one of 2 national highways that have yet to be sealed. Of course it is of great significance to the development of both South Australia and the Northern Territory. The following was submitted to the Minister

From the considerable amount of material studied by the sub-committee in respect of the Stuart Highway between Port Augusta and the South Australian-Northern Territory border, the sub-committee concluded that:

The existing route of the National Highway is considerably longer than is necessary or desirable.

Through traffic to the Northern Territory makes up the great bulk of its use.

Then, in our conclusions, we suggest that Route 3 would have advantages because it traverses the alignment of the East- West Railway before veering north to run parallel to the new railway alignment from Tarcoola to Alice Springs. Of course, recently the Federal and State Transport Minister agreed that Route 3 is the route to be followed. Route 3 generally follows the corridor of the existing highway but with a more direct route which crosses the Trans-Australian Railway at Coondambo, bypasses Kingoonya by 20 kilometres, then crosses the existing highway at Gosses and at Hawks Nest Bore before joining Route 2 some 70 kilometres south-east of Coober Pedy. From there to the border Route 3 is identical with Route 2, with a total length of 755 kilometres between Wirrappa and the border.

These various routes were the subject of a report made to the Government not many months ago. Kingoonya is a very small centre but it has quite a few familities which depend upon tourism. It is a small centre which services the surrounding station homesteads. Some concern has been expressed that Kingoonya will be bypassed by the current proposals which have been described as Route 3. My colleagues from the Northern Territory and South Australia who have been studing this matter carefully believe that, at a very small additional cost, Kingoonya ought to be included in the Route 3 proposals because, after all, the town provides facilities such as water. It has an hotel. In our view it would be most important that that town be included in the route. It would involve a diversion of only 20 kilometres. I think that the cost of that would be minimal in the context of the overall cost of the project.

The recommendations go on to say that there is an expectation that the sealing of the Stuart Highway would immediately increase traffic volume by more than 70 per cent. We refer to the due consideration that has been given to the impact that a new highway may have upon Aborigines living in the vicinity. Private contractors tendering for construction work and sealing is most desirable. The original report presented to the Minister suggested that the planning and survey work on the highway would take from 1 8 months to 2 years. I do not think I would agree with that assessment. If private contractors were employed to do that work it could be carried out in stages. The survey work could be done and after a 6 months survey and planning period the road construction work could commence. The maximum co-operation and understanding between the State and Federal governments, which has characterised the negotiations so far, is commended and encouraged. The study carried out by the steering committee appointed to report to the Federal and State Transport Ministers on alternative routes is a very creditable effort and worthy of high commendation.

The funds necessary to implement the conclusion that we arrived at- that is, that the planning and survey work should be commenced as soon as possible- we believe ought to be provided in the 1977-78 Budget. We believe that funds to enable the sealing of a 50- kilometre section of the highway between Port Augusta and Woomera should be provided in the 1977-78 Budget also. That work could be proceeded with immediately because the survey and planning work has been done. Our final 3 conclusions are these: That the Stuart Highway is essential to the success of tourism, defence, commerce and industry. We have had evidence which shows that the fact that the roads from Alice Springs to Brisbane have been sealed has cost those conducting business between South

Australia and the Northern Territory approximately $70m to $80m a year.

We believe that the development of viable enterprises connected with mining, secondary industry, tourism and finance are closely allied to a national highway of prescribed standards. It is certainly necessary that the Federal Government should be prepared to provide future access for people who could be disadvantaged as a result of the new route. I say that particularly in view of the fact that in the vicinity of Roxby Downs, which is not far from Woomera, there are quite considerable deposits of uranium and copper. I understand that there is some gold there as well. It seems to me that in the future it could well be that Woomera, far from disappearing as an establishment of considerable importance, could become another Kalgoorlie, that is, the northern mining centre of South Australia. It is very important that the Government recognises the development potential of minerals in that area and recognises that it might be necessary, in the interests of the development of South Australia and in the provision of further job opportunities and the other benefits that flow from that, it might be wise to set aside some finances for the future to provide access to areas such as Roxby Downs.

That is all I wish to say at the present time. I request that the Ministers concerned recognise the important aspects to which I have alluded tonight. I ask Senator Durack in particular to take note again of my request to the AttorneyGeneral with respect to uniform firearms legislation. I ask Senator Carrick to convey to the Minister for Transport my thoughts concerning the Stuart Highway.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I enter this debate at this stage in order to avoid a long discussion at the Committee of the Whole stage. I want to make a number of points. I had intended to confine my remarks to Aboriginal Affairs, but my colleague on the other side of the chamber has inspired me to make further remarks in relation to the Northern Territory. I think Senator Jessop will remember that while his leader was leader of the caretaker government in 1975 for the period between 11 November and 13 December he visited the Northern Territory. Among the many promises he made was to construct the highway referred to, encourage shipping and, finally, statehood to the Northern Territory. That, of course, was contrary to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory which said that Statelike powers ought to be transferred over a period in order to ensure the most effective form of government in the Northern Territory. Since then the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) has indicated that he is in fact the Minister for confrontation, particularly with trade unions and minority groups in the community.

Amongst the other promises made for the Northern Territory was a new wharf for the port of Darwin. That prospect is further away now than it was 5 or 6 years ago. A guarantee was given for shipping both from the east and from the west to ensure that freight charges would be reasonable. Over the last 1 8 months I have had a continual confrontation with the Government in order to find out whether the Australian National Line ships are to be taken off the route or whether the Western Australian shipping company will suffer that fate. At the moment the companies are just surviving. The only method of bringing in goods apart from by road or ship is by air. Anyone who lives in the Northern Territory knows precisely the amount that that adds even to those types of goods which are needed just to survive.

The government decision to close down the railway line south of Darwin was one of the first magnificent’ decisions. Over a long period the railway had shown profits, small losses or had cut even, but there was a grim determination to close it down. It was closed down. It has been put into mothballs. I am told that a lot of the rollingstock and other material will be taken away for storage. In other words, there will be no attempt by this Government to reopen that line. A major dispute over road freights is now in progress. One of the great problems is that there are so many subcontractors employed carrying freight into Darwin and other centres of the Northern Territory that their situation is very serious and there is likely to be a total stoppage over a long period. When this happens it is possible that shipping will not be fast enough to overcome the sudden stoppage, and most of the perishables in particular will have to be carried by air. Who will lose out? It will be the people of the Northern Territory.

Senator Jessop, who was railing us a few moments ago, has disappeared from the chamber. I think that honourable senators ought to hear both sides of these questions. Senator Jessop tried to make an apologetic statement for the Government but, quite frankly, it did not work. The transport operators, who are mostly subcontractors, operate under big companies. The big companies are very much like Fagin in Oliver Twist. They are the people who make the decisions and they are the people who get the rake-off. This is like the ‘labour only’ jobs in the building trades where people frequently have to put up with substandard work because the master builder, the man whom controls all the subcontractors, is the man who makes the rake-off. I remember that some years ago, after a change of government in Queensland, we had a very good railway system from Brisbane to Coolangatta, to the Gold Coast as it is now known. Goods and all the necessities of life were carried by rail at a comparatively cheap freight rate. The then Country Party member for the area had a very big interest in one of the local carrying companies. He is now deceased; God rest his soul. He and others became involved in the road transport system and decided that that was the sort of system that ought to operate. The Government co-operated and closed down the south coast railway. It is significant that in 1976 and 1977 the present Minister for Local Government has been shouting from the rooftops for the reconstruction of that railway in order to reduce transport costs. In those days many friends of the State government were able to buy the railway land, buildings, rolling-stock, railway lines- just about everything that went with it- on the cheap, from the bargain basement.

I would hate to see this sort of thing happen in the Northern Territory, but all the signs are there that precisely the same thing will happen. For the price of some sort of political support from the big operators, this Government is selling out the Northern Territory. It will be sold out because the Government will make it too expensive for people to live there. The Northern Territory is already in a serious situation because of the economic difficulties this Government is facing. The Government was going to solve the economic problems in a matter of months. After 18 months it has solved nothing. Everything has become worse. I was interested in Senator Jessop’s remark that Woomera would become the Kalgoorlie of South Australia. I am not aware of any vast riches under the ground at Woomera but there is some nuclear waste buried there. Perhaps selling that somewhere is Senator Jessop’s idea of mining for profit.

During the sitting of Estimates Committee D a couple of weeks ago I raised a number of points and I want to go through them again in order to refute the attitude at that time of the Government’s spokesman to some aspects of Aboriginal affairs. Senate Estimates Committee D, or that part of its deliberations with which I was concerned, sat in this chamber on 28 April. I made a number of statements concerning the effect that the Government’s Aboriginal policy and Budget cuts was having on Aboriginal employment and morale. At the time we were assured by a senior departmental officer- supported, of course, by the Minister handling that Department- that Budget cuts had not contributed to Aboriginal unemployment. I now want to go into some detail and I will need to read a couple of notes because they are relevant to my argument. On page 126 of the Hansard report of Estimates Committee D on 28 April 1977 I asked how many people had lost their jobs on town management and other community projects over the last year as a result of the 1976-77 Budget cuts. The officer replied:

I would hope none. Our instructions to regional directors were that there was to be no retrenchment as a result of this. They were asked to ensure that employment would be maintained at about the same level as last year.

That is a little confusing because in the previous year- the Government based its budget for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs on the last financial year- it had already cut back the Hayden Budget by several million dollars. So when the Government says that in this financial year only so much money has been spent in a particular area, or that a cut back has been only so much, the figures are not related to the 1975- 76 Budget, or to the 1976-77 Budget in comparison with it; what it means is that there were cut backs to the 1975-76 Budget. This is where we have to be factual. If the Government says that, it does not look nearly as bad, but if one takes the original 1975-76 Budget and the total allocation for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, one sees that the slash back in the 1976- 77 Budget is rather catastrophic. Later, after further questions about these matters, the senior officer stated:

All I can say is that that is the position. Some employment could have ceased because projects finished. That is not unemployment as a result of cuts.

That is not true either, because if money is withdrawn from a project and the work on that project ceases that is precisely the same as if money is withdrawn from a community. So the resulting unemployment comes from the fact that the Government has ceased to fund a particular project. One should not play with words and twist them around in that way. I am not blaming the officer. He has to defend the policy of his Government. What I am saying is that what he said is wrong. He went on to say:

All I can indicate is that there was no intentional unemployment as a result of the cuts in funds.

I can go out, get into my car and bash into a car coming from the opposite direction. I can say: My tyre blew out; I had no intention of having a car smash’. I can run over 3 pedestrians and say: My brakes failed; I had no intention of killing the 3 pedestrians’. The same sort of political reasoning has been used in this case. I repeat what the officer said:

AH I can indicate is that there was no intentional unemployment as a result of the cuts in funds.

But if funds are cut back and unemployment results, whether or not that is the intention, the end result is the same. Later he said that it might have been accidental unemployment and added:

  1. . without wishing to argue with Senator Keeffe it may have been caused because a project which was under way finished and therefore some Aboriginals would be unemployed.

That is what happened; it is a factual statement. But to say there is no unemployment as a result is quite crazy. Amoonguna is a prime example, with houses that have remained unfinished for 1 8 months. Jay Creek is another prime example. An area on Palm Island is a perfect example, and that is funded quite differently. To accept this situation just because somebody finished up on a job is a wrong attitude to take. That is covering over the real responsibility of the Government. The officer went on to say:

But this was not as a result of reduction in funds because there was a clear direction from the Government that there was to be no unemployment as a result of unavailability of funds.

Very interesting. To reiterate what the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Government have told us already regarding this matter, I shall indicate the response I received from the senior officer to the following question:

From what has been said, I take it that as a result of this massive cutback in funds, nobody has become unemployed.

The officer’s answer was that nobody had become unemployed. In a moment I shall produce figures that totally rebut that sort of argument. During the past 2 weeks I have been in contact with a number of Aboriginal communities throughout Australia not only in my own State but in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and other States. I suppose that overall I contacted less than 2 per cent- probably only one per cent- of the total number of Aboriginal communities throughout Australia. In a moment I shall point out the details contained in answers I received. If this represents only one per cent or two per cent of the whole story, what a tragedy it must be for the other 99 per cent or 98 per cent.

The Government and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs through its officers have indicated that there is no unemployment as a result of Government cutbacks. I think this is a misrepresentation of the real facts behind the whole issue. I shall outline some of the details contained in replies I received. At Haasts Bluff in the

Northern Territory at least 12 people are now unemployed as a direct result of Budget cuts. Four of these people were involved in council work, another four were involved in Department of Aboriginal Affairs community projects and another four were involved in housing projects- 12 breadwinners. If one puts the number of dependants at a minimum of 4 each, one sees that the best part of 50 people are without an income. I shall put both sides of the story because I did receive a couple of favourable replies. At Areyonga, although the 1976-77 community employment level was not affected, the community has not been advised of the 1 977-78 Budget claims and is worried.

I think that, when we were discussing these matters in the Estimates Committees, in response to questions we asked of the departmental officers and the Minister we ought to have been given some indication of what was to happen in the next year. Only a few days ago I received a letter from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner). As a result of representations I had received from many Aboriginal communities who wanted to know what the Government was going to do in the next financial year- whether the funds for those communities would be ongoing, whether their projects would be ongoing and whether they would be able to make forward planning arrangements- I asked the Minister for relevant information. In effect, the Minister said: I will not tell you. You can find that out when the Budget comes out’. The people of Areyonga want to know this; they want to know what they can plan for the next year.

The Shire Clerk for the Shire of Burke in the Gulf country in the far north of Queensland has informed me that approximately 90 per cent of the people in the shire are unemployed. The percentage of Aboriginal people there would probably be between 80 per cent and 90 per cent. A few people of European descent would be included in that figure. Nevertheless, this level of unemployment is a result of Government cutbacks. There are no more special projects in that Shire. Honourable senators will recall that in the days of the Labor Government and, to a lesser extent in the early days of this Government, special funds were made available to reduce Aboriginal unemployment. Those funds are not made available any more. A dressed up version gives benefit to a minimum of Aboriginal people. In the old days not very many people at all were unemployed in the Burke Shire, because the Government of the day was sympathetic and there was progress in that Shire.

At Papunya over 70 per cent of the Aboriginal people are unemployed. Over the past two or three months Papunya has received a lot of adverse publicity, and I regret to say that a lot of it is very true. When I was at Papunya a couple of weeks ago, because of a disputation between the canteen manager and others on the settlement the canteen was closed down. Nobody had given authority to any departmental officer to open what is known as the ‘soup kitchen system’. So at that point of time there were kiddies there who had been without food for three or four days. I understand further problems have occurred there over the past few days, and this also is the subject of representations from my office to the Minister’s office. It was only as a result of strong action by the Papunya Council, and not as a result of any concern shown by the Government, that this figure did not go any higher. I think I indicated in the situation I mentioned a moment ago, that the Government is unconcerned about Papunya. The people now are having their livelihood threatened. This is an area in which not much bush tucker is available unless people have transport and are able to go deeply into the bush to look for it.

There is a threat over the heads of everybody in the Northern Territory that if the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly goes ahead with a particular ordinance people will be classified in little groups- whether they are traditional Aborigines, to whether they are allowed to use modern-day transport to go hunting for bush tucker, whether they are able to use rifles, or whether they must be confined to the use of spears. I hope that ordinance is never implemented.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It has been rescinded.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Actually, it has been put into cold storage. I hope that is where it stays.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It will never become law.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Senator Cavanagh has more faith in Mr Letts than some of the people up there and I have. I reckon that the first night the moon goes down early the Legislative Assembly will introduce any of those measures. The Aboriginal Advancement League in Victoria estimates that between 40 per cent and 45 per cent of Aborigines in that State are unemployed. This figure is away in front of the average rate of unemployment, but the Government keeps on saying that unemployment is a myth. It is all very well for people who own properties like Nareen, who have vast mining shares and who have investments in real estate, to say that unemployment is a myth because they are not going to be hungry; they are able to live very well indeed. The new Victorian figures we have received today show that the appointments of 10 people to the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service were terminated from last Wednesday. They are 10 more people who have been thrown onto the bread line. At this point in time they are not even receiving unemployment benefit. I know there have been some problems in relation to funds. I know, too, that the Minister was down there quite recently and said he would give them so much money; but that money did not go anywhere near covering the requirements of that particular service until the end of June.

In my home city of Townsville the Iris Clay Hostel, which provides accommodation, shelter and meals for a lot of transient people and others, has an almost total population at the moment of unemployed persons. In the local area there are 197 applications for homes alone. Yet money has been withdrawn from both the local housing associations. I know there were problems in bookkeeping and so on, but this comes back to the Department’s claim that no unemployment was caused by Budget cuts. Again in this particular instance dozens and dozens of people have been displaced from work. Some 170 people are unemployed in the Townsville area. These are black people- Islanders and Aborigines- who are forced to live in parks and around the river banks, other than the 40 people approximately who are living in the Iris Clay Hostel. There is a State hostel which is usually about 90 per cent unoccupied because the State department, which built the hostel with Commonwealth money, will not let people stay in it. That department would rather see the people go to the river banks or to the Green Motel or somewhere else and not provide them with accommodation. We are told, of course, that the Government’s cutbacks did not cause any of these problems.

I should like to refer now to the Stradbroke Housing Association on Stradbroke Island. There are 20 unemployed young boys and girls on the Island and, in addition to this problem, 12 families in that area are in desperate need of homes. At Borroloola in the Northern Territory there are at least 10 unemployed as a result of this Government’s cutback in funds. But an overseas controlled mining company was able to pay $800,000 for McArthur River Station in the Borroloola area, despite the fact that the local Aboriginal people had for a long period an application for restoration of their tribal lands and purchase of the Station. A question has been placed on the notice paper concerning this matter so I do not propose to canvass it. The mining company was able to take this action. This is a valuable asset for the mining company because in the future it will not have to pay royalties to the local Aboriginal people; it will have access to the Aboriginal sacred sites; it will be able to dig them up and do what it likes. I might say also that the Government, in allowing that company to purchase McArthur River Station, has broken its own guidelines in relation to selling properties to overseas controlled companies.

At Yuendumu, which was discussed during the Estimates Committee’s hearing, the mining company lost 5 positions, the Housing Association lost 5 positions and if it were not for the activities of the community council it would have suffered likewise. The council, of course, was able to gain a few positions which saved the situation to some degree. I refer now to the situation at Wiluna in Western Australia. This is one of the great farming ventures that was initiated during the days of the Labor Government. I received a telegram from the community at Wiluna only a few days ago, couched in these terms:

Replying your telegram, approximately 150 adult Aboriginals employed on the desert farm project. In course of the year operational funding been cut to extent we may not be able to harvest our present crop of citrus, approximately 15 000 cases -

I digress to state that because of the cutback in funding it is possible that this crop which might have made the financial year economic for the Wiluna orange growing project may not be economically viable. The telegram continues: which are now ready for harvest unless we get immediate funding. There are no houses at present in Wiluna for Aboriginals. They live in tents and humpies. Present grant of $105,000 for the erection of four prototype houses is insufficient to meet the needs of the community of plus or minus 596 people, and as there is no further funding for 1977-78 -

This particular community has already been told that it will not receive any money next year- this will obviously cause discontent and hardship. We are at present training through adult education a team cf bricklayers, carpenters and masons with the aim of employing these people to build their own township complex. Due now to the lack of funding this effort will be aimless and will create further unemployment and hardship to the community.

That is signed by the chairman of the local community council. It gives a further lie to the explanations that have been given by this Government as a result of questioning during the Estimates Committee discussions.

In relation to the employment situation in Rockhampton. I have been informed that it impossible to estimate the number of Aborigines unemployed through lack of community projects. Local opinion is that unemployment for various reasons is estimated at 70 per cent for males and 95 per cent for females. That comes at a time in the Rockhampton area when the meatworks provide a fairly large amount of casual employment. The unemployment rate stays at that height when, in fact, the Queensland average is running at about 7 per cent. I turn now to the Doomadgee mission in the Gulf of Carpentaria. I have been advised that it is extremely difficult to separate the figures for unemployment and the reasons for that employment. However, there are 121 males in this community who do not have a job. Part of the reason for that is possibly the responsibility of the Queensland Government but certainly it is also the overall responsibility of this Government because of its cutback in funds.

An interesting reply to a question asked by my colleague, Senator McLaren, was given during the Estimates Committee hearings. The Department indicated that the precise number of Aborigines retrenched at Gerard in South Australia was not known. We all know that 7 people or more are to be displaced from employment in this particular project. When I asked a further question in relation to grants-in-aid fund cutbacks, I was informed:

There have been no significant retrenchments or Abroiginal unemployment as a result of fund restraints.

I do not mind if the Government comes out and states: ‘We know we have thrown massive numbers of people onto the unemployment market. We are sorry about it but we are bankrupt. We have not got Wiley Fancher to go around and raise money for us. We do not have Khemlani to come in and eat his potato chips at the Wellington Hotel. We have none of these people to help us any more. We are bankrupt’. For God ‘s sake, tell us the truth. Do not tell us any more untruths. I do not know what we will do about this in the future but I hope that the Government will pull up its socks and realise that between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of the Aboriginal population in Australia does not have a job. 1 have referred to figures tonight that can be verified- every one of them. None of the figures are a hoax. None of them have been dreamed up. They have all been verified by the communities. If those figures are indicative of what is happening in the community generally, then Australia so far as its Aboriginal and Island population is concerned is in a very serious situation indeed. In the days of the Labor Governmentwe can find examples of this from previous Estimates Committee debates during those 3 harassed years- it set out to soak up the unemployment in the Aboriginal community. Suddenly people had jobs. Jobs were created by special grants to local government, the introduction of housing associations, community welfare jobs, and loans to people to purchase businesses, farms and so on. A new feeling of dignity arose within the Aboriginal community.

The present Government is always criticising Aboriginals because they drink too much. If 95 per cent of politicians on the other side of the chamber had to live on the same income as Aboriginal people they would be the greatest mob of drunks- I am referring to Liberal Party and National Country Party members- that this country has ever seen. Once human dignity has been broken down, once hope has been broken down and once all those things for which we strive in life have been broken down there is nowhere else to go. When one is in the situation one comforts oneself with whatever distractions can be found- whether it be a bottle of methylated spirits or some other way of trying to take one’s mind off problems. Just about every Australian, regardless of colour, has at some time been confronted with personal worries but when it is a continuing saga, when one does not know how one is going to clothe one’s kids, feed one’s kids, educate one’s kids and house one’s kids, this is the greatest morale breakdown that a human family can face. We faced it in the days of the great Depression. Up to 40 per cent of the community had to face these morale destroying conditions. We are about to face them again in the general community because of the inability of the Government to rectify the economic situation. We have a responsibility to the less privileged in the community to see that some of their problems are overcome. Those problems will not be overcome if we have Estimates Committee hearings in which less of the truth is told, when the truth is glossed over and when the Government forces its Public Service officers to do that. I do not blame the Public Service. It has a rotten policy to carry out. It has to protect the Government somehow or other. It is a sad thing that it has to do it that way.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– It is perhaps worth recalling at this stage of the debate that we are examining 2 Bills which provide for additional appropriations for the 1 976-77 financial year of $326m. It is also perhaps worth comparing this with the additional appropriations for 1975-76 of $506m and the additional appropriations for 1 974-75 of $l,241m. The Treasurer (Mr Lynch) has confirmed that outlays in 1976-77 ‘will not vary significantly from the figure of $24,32 1 m that was contained in the last Commonwealth Budget’. To that extent the additional appropriations reflect the Government’s success in restraining its own expenditure as a fundamental aspect of its economic policies. I note particularly that the additional appropriations include almost $llm for the Department of the Capital Territory and the National Capital Development Commission. Most of that is in fact additional estimates for the important development programs in the Capital Territory of the NCDC and it amounts to a significant part of the total of $326m provided for in the 2 Appropriation Bills before the Senate.

It is in this context of the development of the Capital Territory and the very important role of the Commonwealth Government expenditure and policies in the Capital Territory that I would like to take the opportunity of this debate to discuss the questions of small business enterprise in the Capital Territory. It is well known that small business employs approximately 40 per cent of the Australian work force. It is a vital source of initiative and enterprise within the private sector and though definitions can vary there are at least 200 000 small businesses in Australia. I think it is also important to note in the White Paper that was presented to the Senate tonight by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) a statement in respect of the importance of small business, and I will quote from that report.

Small business occupies a significant place in the structure of Australian industry. Denning a small firm as an enterprise which employs less than one hundred people, there were about 30 400 small manufacturing firms in 1968-69, the latest year for which data are available. They accounted for 94 per cent of the total number of firms engaged in manufacturing, 32 per cent of total employment and 26 per cent of value adding by manufacturing. Small businesses also make up important segments of other sectors of the economy, particularly in the commerce area.

The Government indicated during the last election campaign and has confirmed since its intention of encouraging the private sector in Canberra, in the Capital Territory and the adjacent region to provide balance for the existing dominance of the public sector in this national capital. It is recognised generally that the overall economic situation is fundamental to the future of small business and that general economic recovery will of course be beneficial to small businesses. But there are some special measures which have been taken by the Government to encourage and to support small business within the community in recognition of its very important role in the private sector. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard some factual notes which have been prepared by the Treasurer on these measures.

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

The document read as follows-

THE INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE SCHEME

During the first phase of its operations, the scheme provides a special income tax deduction of 40 per cent of the capital cost of eligible new plant and certain eligible improvements erected on primary production land. In its second phase, plant etc. acquired or constructed after 30 June 1978 will attract a special deduction at an investment allowance rate of 20 per cent. The investment allowance deduction is available in addition to taxation deductions allowable by way of depreciation for the full cost of the plant.

THE TSVA SCHEME

This provides a special deduction in respect of most classes of trading stock, including livestock. The 1976-77 deduction is ascertained by applying to the taxation value of trading stock on hand at the beginning of the year of income- not being a value higher than the cost of the stock- one-half of the percentage increase in the goods component of the CPI measured from the June quarter of 1976 to the June quarter of 1977.

UNDISTRIBUTED INCOME TAX

With the needs of small businesses particularly in mind, the proportion of after-tax business income that a private company may retain free of undistributed income tax has been increased from 50 per cent to 60 per cent.

INCOME EQUALIZATION DEPOSITS

As a means of avoiding any disadvantageous tax consequences in respect of fluctuating incomes of primary producers, this scheme provides for the allowance of special income tax deductions for deposits lodged with the Commissioner of Taxation and for the inclusion in assessable income of proceeds received on withdrawal of deposits.

AVERAGING SYSTEM APPLYING TO PRIMARY PRODUCERS

This system has recently been modified so as to exclude from the calculations of average income (used for rating purposes) any amount by which the taxable income of any year within the averaging period exceeds $16,000. The modified average system has the effect of lowering the amount of personal income tax payable by primary producers in cases to which the amendment is directed.

PERSONAL INCOME TAX INDEXATION

Provision has been made for the general rates of income tax, the general concessional rebate, sole parent rebate and rebates for maintenance of eligible dependants to be automatically indexed each year by reference to movements in the Consumer Price Index. The indexation percentage for 1976-77 purposes was 13 per cent. The changes in the rate scales as a result of this are as follows:

This shows that indexation avoids the situation where inflationary increases push people into higher tax brackets. For example, a person with a taxable income of $10,000 in 1975- 76 stays in the same tax bracket in 1976-77 if his 1976- 77 income is $11,300.

The increases in rebates for 1976-77 over 1975-76 are as follows:

HOW THE CONCESSIONS ADD TO SMALL BUSINESS PROFITS: EXAMPLES

The level of tax savings and benefits that could accrue to private companies and primary producers as a result of these taxation initiatives is indicated in examples set out in Annexures A and B.

The level of tax savings and benefits actually derived by small businesses would, of course, depend on the particular circumstances (e.g. the level of investment in plant eligible for the investment allowance, the value of opening stocks, the extent to which the primary producer invests in income equalization deposits and so on) and could therefore be significantly greater than that shown in the examples used.

Examples showing tax savings accruing to SMALL COMPANIES and their SHAREHOLDERS under the Government's TSVA and Investment Allowance schemes, the increased retention allowance for private companies and indexation of personal income tax rates. Examples showing tax savings accruing to PRIMARY PRODUCERS under the Government's TSVA, Investment Allowance, Income Equalization Deposits and modified averaging schemes and indexation of personal income tax rates. {: .speaker-KPV} ##### Senator KNIGHT: -The national economic policies pursued by the Government, as I have already mentioned, and the specific measures which I have just referred to are directly relevant to small business in the Capital Territory. It also has to be noted that government restraint has, as it always has had, a particular impact in the Territory because of the importance of the public sector here and because of the importance of the role of the Commonwealth Government. This is one reason why we emphatically want to balance the economy here as between the public and the private sectors. This is a significant and for the most part new initiative in developing the national capital of Australia and diversifying and strengthening its economy in the process. It also emphasises the important role of the Commonwealth Government in the Territory. There are difficulties for small business which are well recognised by everybody and there are a number of measures which I think could be considered. Indeed some of these are referred to in the report which the Minister for Industry and Commerce tabled tonight and I will refer to them in a moment. Certainly one of the most important questions is the finance available to small business in the community in current circumstances. I think there is scope, for example, for the Government to encourage financial institutions to make loan funds more readily available to small business and it is worth considering the possibility of loan guarantees as a means of achieving this end. Many other countries have shown the important stimulatory role of government in encouraging small business and these are the sorts of measures that might be considered in that context. Again I would refer to the White Paper on Manufacturing Industry which was tabled this evening by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. On page 62 of that White Paper there is the following statement: >Many small businessmen claim that the sources of finance available to them are inadequate, especially in the area of development finance for the more recently established, faster growing firms. In co-operation with the States and with the financial institutions, the Government will study various means of filling any relevant gaps in existing credit facilities. That of course is the sort of measure to which I was just referring, and I think it is certainly one matter worthy of urgent consideration to support small business in its important role within the economy. Some action to this end has been taken of course by the establishment within the Department of Industry and Commerce of a Small Business Branch, but there are other measures which I think are worthy of consideration also. For example, it seems that one of the problems facing small business is the question of the monthly payment of sales tax. This also restricts the capital flow of small business particularly at a time when some businesses are having to extend credit facilities beyond the general limits. It does present particular problems to small business. It seems to me that it might be worth considering some expansion of this provision for payment of sales tax after a month, perhaps to quarterly payments or on a 60-day basis which would reflect the sort of provision normally made to creditors, for example, by small businesses. In the Capital Territory obviously these sorts of measures would in themselves be important. But there are some other particular problems and some particular measures which I think might be considered in the special situation of the Capital Territory. For example, we might usefully have here a special body to give guidance, encouragement and assistance to small business in the way that the Small Business Branch does through the Department of Industry and Commerce. But in the States they all have their own special agencies for this as well as having recourse to the Commonwealth. In the Capital Territory we do not have that State tier of advice and assistance available to small business and this would seem to be particularly important if some form of loan guarantee system were introduced, or for that matter considered. I think it is also again worth referring to the White Paper presented tonight and its comments on small business. In this context I refer to the relationship between the Commonwealth and State governments, which is so important in many respects to small business, but which is lacking in the Capital Territory. I quote again from the White Paper: >The joint Commonwealth/State Small Business arrangements will be continued with a view to pooling resources and minimising duplication of effort. As part of this program a small business unit has been included in the Department of Industry and Commerce, and where necessary, the States have established small business units or agencies within their government machinery. > >Research in Australia and overseas has shown that programs intended to raise the level of managerial skill contribute importantly to the continued success of small enterprises. Counselling, training courses and seminars will be developed in co-operation with the States and in Colleges of Advanced Education and Adult Education courses. > >Research into longer run economic issues of relevance to the small business sector will be conducted by the Bureau of Industry and Economics. Publications of interest will be continued and expanded, and a catalogue of information and advice available from the Commonwealth and States is being compiled. It is of some interest that that statement does not refer to the Territories. I hope that in such arrangements in the future the Territories will be taken into account. I reiterate my suggestion that perhaps we need some sort of special agency, such as the States have established in cooperation with the Commonwealth, to assist small business and provide incentives for small business. At the moment it is an objective of the Government- and a good deal of action has been taken by the Minister for the Capital Territory **(Mr Staley)-** to encourage the establishment of new industries in the Capital Territory. But, again, there are the same sorts of problems to which I have just referred because of the lack of State-type incentives in the Capital Territory. The Minister has established an Industry Development Group within the Department of the Capital Territory. But it would seem to me that we need or we ought at least to be examining some form of further incentives to promote or to encourage small business and new industries to set up in the Capital Territory and also to encourage the development of existing industries and small businesses. Of course, in these areas we have recourse to the Commonwealth machinery which has been established such as the Commonwealth Development Bank. But once again, that State tier of assistance, incentives, machinery and organisation is lacking. At times this poses some problems for the sort of development which we are seeking now to encourage in the Capital Territory. I hope that that will be looked at carefully and in the near future. I add only that our very close neighbour, Queanbeyan, has the benefits of the sorts of incentives offered by the New South Wales Government. We in the Capital Territory are very pleased to see Queanbeyan grow and attract industry because we benefit from that also. There has however been a good deal of success in the Capital Territory. As I understand it, since the establishment of the Industry Development Group about $20m of new investment has been attracted and will provide eventually for about 1000 new jobs in the Capital Territory. I think that is a very encouraging start. All of this is simply to say that small business is, in fact, the basis of the private sector and in many respects Commonwealth Government initiative is a fundamental element in encouraging small business, but particularly so in the Capital Territory. Many actions have been taken, both nationally and locally, to encourage new industry and the development of existing small business in the Territory. But there is, I think, at this stage a need to consider other measures to sustain and to boost existing small businesses in the Territory and to encourage the establishment of further small businesses and new industries in the Capital Territory. {: #subdebate-74-0-s4 .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia -- In supporting the amendment that has been moved by my colleague from New South Wales, **Senator Mulvihill,** I firstly cast the minds of honourable senators back to the NovemberDecember 1975 period when the election promises of this reactionary, conservative Government were being mouthed. Some of those that were most memorable at that time included the promises that 'we will reduce inflation and unemployment'; 'we will reduce government spending and the Budget deficit' and 'we will stop the around-the- world jaunts by Ministers'. It is now some 18 months since this Government illegally came to power in this country and it is fitting that we should look at the deplorable record of the Government in operation. Let us look at the Budget deficit. I will quote from a number of recent newspaper articles which indicate that the current deficit is now running at $l,000m more than the 1975-76 figure. I quote first from some sections of the *Australian* of 6 April 1977 under the heading 'Deficit blow for the Prime Minister. Government plans for tax cuts in jeopardy' by the political correspondent Peter Cross. He said: >The latest estimate of this year's deficit is $400m ahead of the original projection and follows a year of rigorous costcutting by the Government. > >Government ministers and officials are now struggling with next year's Budget outline and trying to achieve a deficit of under $2,000m. > >The Budget deficits over past years have been: 1972-3 $709m; 1973-4$293m; 1 974-5 $2,567m; 1975-6 $3,585m. > >To achieve a deficit under $2,000m and to meet its tax reform commitments, the Government will have to cut projected spending by around $2,000m or raise indirect taxes or use a combination of both measures. Honourable senators know just what are some of the measures that the Government has decided to take in those areas. The *Financial Review* of 8 March this year had this to say: >For the eight months to the end of February the Federal Government deficit was running at a massive $5, 532m. > >Despite the most earnest endeavours by the Government to cut back on outlays and the moral indignation that was generated about the size of the Labor Government's deficit - Honourable senators will, of course, remember that Opposition supporters, as they were then, castigated the Labor Government for its deficit when the Labor Government was introducing such social reforms as Australia had never seen before. This Government decided that it should cut back immediately and it has not been successful. The *Financial Review* goes on: the latest figures bring home the difficulty the Fraser Administration is having in bringing the deficit to anything near the $2, 609m estimated in the Budget. The deficit at this time last year was $4,522.4m. It goes on to say: >Total receipts for the latest eight months are $10,2 73.1m, while at the same time in 1 976 they were $9,406m. > >For the month of February alone - That is, February 1977- . . the deficit notched up a further $7 1 5.2m. Total receipts for the month were $ 1 ,392.7m. {: .speaker-9I4} ##### Senator Messner: -- Why? {: .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator COLEMAN: -- The honourable senator on my left asks why. It certainly was not as a result of the actions of the Labor Government. That is all that the Government has been able to say since it came to office. It says only that it is all the fault of the Labor Government, the Labor Administration, that we had for 3 terrible years here in Australia. It says that unemployment was worse than it ever had been before and that the deficit was higher than it ever had been before. I am producing facts and figures to prove that the deficit is higher now than it ever has been before. These are not my figures. These are figures from recognised political correspondents and economists in their own right. From the *Australian* on 6 April 1977- {: .speaker-9I4} ##### Senator Messner: -- What about 30 April? {: .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator COLEMAN: -I am sorry; was it 30 April? {: .speaker-9I4} ##### Senator Messner: -- What is the deficit at 30 April? {: .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator COLEMAN: -- I do not have the figure for the deficit at 30 April and I do not think that any of these newspapers have ever bothered to quote the figure that was available to 30 April. I would doubt that it was down very far. {: .speaker-9I4} ##### Senator Messner: -- It is $3, 500m. {: .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator COLEMAN: **- Senator, you** will have your opportunity later. {: #subdebate-74-0-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! I ask the honourable senator to direct her remarks to the Chair. {: .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator COLEMAN: -- I am sorry, **Mr President.** I will direct my remarks to the Chair, without interruption. In the *Australian* of 6 April 1 977 Peter Cross makes the point that there is no doubt that the Government once again would like to make a massive cut in the projected deficit. This year's deficit, even if it reaches $3,000m, an increase of $400m on the original estimate, will be well below, in actual and real terms, the 1975-76 result of $3,500m. The article continues: >After the first round of Budget discussions last month, the excess of requested departmental expenditure for 1977-78 over estimated income was around $4,000m. This was after all departments had taken into account government injunctions to keep expenditure requests constant in real terms. > >To get the deficit for 1977-78 below $2,000m would seem to require a further massive pruning of expenditure or an abandonment of government promises to further cut corporate and personal income taxes. Backtracking on tax promises would not seem to be on for obvious political reasons. On the other hand, reduicing the projected deficit below $2,000m is critical to the Government for both political and market reasons. > >So the determination of the Budget-makers to face up to the political odium flowing from real cuts in some government programs next year will be an important determinant of the state of the bond market in 1 977-78. As can be seen from the comments in the first newspaper extract I have read the Government is likely to embark on further Budget cuts to reduce the deficit. These Budget cuts can cause only hardship, concern and despair for the low income earners and the minority groups in this country. What of the Government's promise to stop all these overseas junket trips? I would like to quote a couple more articles to show how much this Government has adhered to this policy. In the *Sydney Morning Herald* of 22 October 1976, less than 12 months after this Government came to office, under the heading 'Fraser Ministry Near Travel Record' the diplomatic reporter in Canberra had this to say: >The Fraser Ministry is close to the record of being Australia's most travelled. Since the Government came to office on 1 3 December Ministers have made 32 overseas trips at unknown total cost. The cost alone of fares, accommodation and expenses for ministers, wives and one staff member has risen to about $430,000. No details arc provided of the costs of departmental heads and advisers who travelled in ministerial parties, and a number of accounts are believed to be outstanding for the early part of this year . . . The Prime Minister, **Mr Fraser,** said on 2 December last year during his period as caretaker Prime Minister: 'There will be no more expensive overseas junkets or visits to the ruins of other countries'. But the list of ministers going on official overseas trips grows weekly as the Government finds that part of its responsibilities necessitate overseas travel by ministers. I refer now to the *Northern Territory News* of 27 April 1977. An article by Trevor Kavanagh states: >The Prime Minister, **Mr Fraser,** made capital in the 1975 election campaign about the overseas jaunts of **Mr Whitlam** during Labor's period of Government. Now, barely 16 months later, he is in danger of getting some of his own back. **Mr Fraser** promised almost *ad nauseam* that Australia would never again have a 'tourist for a Prime Minister'. Yet already he has made 6 overseas trips since being elected and 2 more trips are looming within the next few months. The article goes on: >Within 8 months he has been to Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand, Papua-New Guinea, Japan, China, Hong Kong, Manila, Canada, US and Indonesia. And next month he's off again. HU eighth foray outside Australia will take him to Italy where he will spend a few days visiting his sister, an artist who has made her home in Rome. Then he will fly to London for the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference, on to Brussels and Bonn and back home via Washington. And to top it off, he now seems set to spend another few days in Malaysia in August . . . But it emphasises the fact that in politics- particularly during elections- expediency is the watchword. It also shows that politicians regard the voter as a man of little intelligence and a very short memory. I turn now to inflation. We all now are very familiar with the statement made on the Gold Coast a couple of months ago by **Mr Anthony** where he indicated that the current rate of inflation for Australia was less than 10 per cent. When Ministers were questioned about this they all indicated that it was in fact the case. Yet the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Technical Annex issued in early 1977 indicates that the 1976 inflation rate for Australia was 14.75 per cent. I seek leave to have the table incorporated in *Hansard* to justify the words that I have just enunciated. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Has the table been presented in the usual way, Senator? {: .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator COLEMAN: -- Yes. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. *The document read as follows-* {: .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator COLEMAN: -- If we like to look at what the newspapers and various reporters have to say about the rate of inflation in Australia and how this is affecting the consumers we need only to turn to an article in the *Australian* of 18 March this year headed 'Consumers Blaming Liberals for Inflation'. They could hardly blame the Labor Government, which is what the Liberals have been doing all this time. I would like to quote some interesting points. The article is written by Deirdre Macken and states: >The Federal Government is being blamed for rising prices by an increasing number of people who 8 months ago put most of the blame on trade unions and their wage demands. > >A national survey conducted among 240 consumers for the advertising agency Ogilvy and Mather shows that 29 per cent of people blame the Government for inflation while 20 per cent think rising prices are caused by unions. > >The percentage of people buying only necessities has jumped from 12 per cent a year ago to 22 per cent, 15 per cent are curbing entertainment expenditure while 13 percent have cut back on clothing compared with 7 per cent last year. > >There is greater confidence in building societies with 38 per cent of people regarding them as a safe investment, compared with 32 percent last year. > >But savings banks and local government bonds are not considered as safe as they were last year. > >Consumer concern with unemployment has remained at the high levels recorded in October and has risen 8 percentage points in the last year. We all know the sorry state concerning unemployment in this country. In its haste and its deceit to hide the problem from Australians we have seen this Government embark on a number of public brainwashing activities. We have seen, for instance, the doing away with the practice of publishing seasonally-adjusted figures. The only thing this did was hide the real unemployment figures. I personally do not believe that the true unemployment figures are known even now; they are not known to government or members of parliament. They are known to the people who are suffering because of unemployment. Businesses themselves are suffering. Next the Government embarked on a deliberate policy of dole bludger bashing. There would hardly be a member of the Government benches either in this House or the other place who has not at some time indicated that anybody who happened to be out of work was a dole bludger of sons. Then the Government indicated that really unemployment was only a myth and that the rate of unemployment has never been a major economic indicator. To me this is rank hypocrisy by a callous, discredited government. In late 1975 unemployment was regarded as a very real thing and a major economic indicator. But times have changed, just like the Leader of the Government in the Senate **(Senator Withers)** who did a miraculous about-face on the referenda questions. This did not do the people in Western Australia any good. On Saturday my telephone was jammed by people asking why **Senator Withers** had changed his mind. I was unable to answer them because **Senator Withers** spoke so vehemently against those very referenda issues when they were brought up in this place in 1973 and 1974. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator Wood: -- It was a convenient change. {: .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator COLEMAN: -- It was an extremely convenient change; I will grant the honourable senator that. Whilst I did not personally agree with the way **Senator Wood** wanted the people of Australia to vote, I am extremely disturbed that in actual fact the Premier in Western Australia, our own natural disaster, **Sir Charles** Court, is now proudly boasting that the 2.1 per cent in Western Australia saved Australia. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator Wood: -- There are some very intelligent people over there, like the Queenslanders. {: .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator COLEMAN: -- Yes, I must admit that perhaps we could be considered parochial, **Senator. I** doubt very much that Queenslanders regard their Premier in the same fine light in which we regard our Premier in Western Australia. I have a number of recent Press articles and figures here which indicate just how much of a myth unemployment really is. The *Nort- West Star* of 8 March 1977 takes a very dim view of the situation in the Mount Isa district. We hear so many of the Government members extrolling the virtues of the mining companies and what a magnificent job they are doing to take up as much unemployment as they can. Under the heading 'More Jobless in Isa District' a reporter states: >There has been a 50 per cent rise in unemployment in the Mount Isa region since the end of last November. That is a period ofless than 4 months. The article continued: >The regions estimated 7.96 per cent of the work force unemployed compares badly with both the national figure- 5.8 per cent at the end of January- and the State figure of 6.4 per cent at the end ofJanuary. The *Age* of 1 1 March 1 977 stated: >Job ads take drastic dive. Worst month in 2 years: ANZ survey. The article by Nigel Wilson stated: >The number of jobs advertised last month dropped by the largest margin in more than 2 years . . . > >The February total of job advertisements placed in 5 mainland newspapers and three in Tasmania slumped by a massive margin-6.6 per cent- to 2 1 703 after adjusting for seasonal factors. This is the biggest fall recorded since November 1974 when the number of jobs offered totalled 1 8 579. The latest month is 7.5 per cent below a year ago. The *Australian* of 14 April 1977 had a heading Gloomy jobs future. Vacancies for teenagers drop- inquiry'. The article stated: >The Federal Government has told an independent international inquiry there is little opportunity of jobs for young people out of jobs even when the economy improves. > >The bleak unemployment forecasts is contained in a paper presented to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations submission will be published in the OECD report later this year. Later the same article stated: >The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, **Mr Street,** reaffirmed the gloomy outlook for the jobless in a statement yesterday on the latest unemployment figures. > >Figures released last week showed that 326 549 people, or 5.4 per cent of the work force, were unemployed last month . . . The Commonwealth Statistician, **Mr R.** J. A. Cameron, released figures yesterday showing that nearly one in 20 jobless had been unemployed for more than 15 months. The survey taken in February shows that 126 400 people between the ages 15 and 19 had no job and that 53 100 of these people were still looking for their first job. The Statistician said that of the 334 800 unemployed in February 275 100 were looking for full time work and 59 600 part time employment. Seasonally adjusted, unemployment gained 30 100 to 287 900 between November and February. If we want a further indication of just how bad the situation is according to the newspapers, the *Canberra Times* of 5 May, just 3 weeks ago, stated: >Figures issued by the Bureau of Statistics yesterday indicate that Australia's unemployment situation became worse in February. > >The figures showed that Australia's total employment fell by 8500~in seasonally adjusted terms during February to 4 734 000. In February last year, Australia's total civilian work force was reckoned to be 4 733 000 on an adjusted basis. > >On raw figures, Australia's total employment rose by 27 800 in February to 4 729 700 compared with 4 729 600 in February last year. I turn now to the disadvantaged groups in the community- the younger people, the juniors, those who are leaving school and women especially. The majority of married women whom I know work because of economic necessity, not because they particularly want to. They work because they must, to feed, clothe, house and educate their children. The *North- West Star* of 1 1 May of this year carried the headline 'Juniors and women now 60 per cent of Isa unemployed'. The article stated: >Mount Isa district unemployed fell by 22 per cent during April, according to figures released by the Commonwealth Employment Service . . . > >Traditionally adult men make up the bulk of unemployed, but last month women and junior men comprised 60 per cent of the city's workless. > >Of the 563 out of work 1 1 1 were junior men, 137 junior women and 86 adult women. There were 229 unemployed adult men in the city. > >Fifty per cent of all juniors unemployed were under 18 years of age- people who had left school for more than 6 months or had held some employment since leaving school, plus those who, having left school, had never found employment. > >School-leavers and people age 19 and 20 each comprised about 25 per cent of the total figure for juniors. While we are talking about the unemployed school leavers, I must make mention of a question directed to the Minister for Social Security **(Senator Guilfoyle)** at question time this morning. We were asking questions about the situation which applies now that a High Court decision has been brought down in favour of Karen Green. The Court decided that she was entitled to unemployment benefit. I heard the Minister say that the Director-General of Social Security would determine whether unemployment benefit was paid. Is the Minister saying that the law can be broken by the Director-General's determining that the girl is not entitled to unemployment benefit? That is the way I read it. A court has decided that this person is entitled to unemployment benefit. The Minister says that under the Act the Director-General can determine whether she will receive it. I think it is an indictment of this Government that the benefit has not already been paid not only to this girl but also to the thousands of unemployed school leavers who finished their term last November or early December and who still have not been able to find employment. I wish to make mention of a few other items. I will return to the student situation a little later. I mention a few of the matters which have arisen during the last few months and which bother me and cause me a deal of concern. I think they cause people in Australia generally a great deal of concern. I refer to the prices pause, as it is called, which is a complete fiasco. It has not done anything to contain prices even in those stores which boast that they support a prices pause. I do not know the position on the eastern seaboard, but in Western Australia the State Government has gone to the bother of publishing little placards which it is asking retailers to put in their windows. The placards state: 'We support the prices pause'. In those stores the consumers have been ripped off for months and months because of the ever-changing prices of consumer commodities. The situation has changed very little. Western Australia has seconded 1 7 inspectors to the Bureau of Consumer Affairs to police the prices pause. I had a query from a constituent who said that the cost of an article in a store in a suburb had increased by what she felt was an exorbitant amount, especially in view of the fact that she bought the first lot on the day before the prices pause and the second lot 2 weeks after the prices pause. I contacted the Consumer Affairs Bureau commissioner. I asked: 'What can you do? Do you have any power to do anything?' He said: 'Yes. I can send an inspector out to investigate'. I said: 'That is lovely'. What will the inspector do? He does not have any power to do anything. He can say to the retailer: 'Is it true that you have put up your prices?' The retailer says: 'Yes, but of course I am passing on costs that have been passed on to me by the wholesaler'. There is not a thing that the inspector can do. There is not a thing that a consumer can do if he or she finds that prices have increased during this prices pause. Can one blame the Premier of South Australia for telling everybody that it is a farce and a fiasco? Of course it is. It was, right from the beginning. It will be even worse by the time it finishes. {: .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator Young: -- You asked a question. The answer is yes. One can blame him. He did not even have the decency to let anybody else in Australia know. {: .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator COLEMAN: -Let us look at how the prices pause was first generated. It was something plucked out of the hat by **Mr Hamer** when no one else could even agree on what the agenda would be. He suddenly plucked it out of the hat. He said: 'Let us have a prices and wages pause'. Everybody said: 'Goody, goody.' They did not stop to think of the repercussions. The only thing that is subject of a pause in Australia is wages. They are being effectively frozen through State Government decisions for a period of more than the 3 months of the prices pause, prices-wages pause or whatever one likes to call it. They have been effectively frozen for a period of not less than 6 months. It was heartening to me at least to see that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission this morning did not fully go along with what the Government had said. I was not particularly happy with the Commission's decision, but it is a damned sight better than what the Government was offering. Let us look at the Commonwealth Government's relations with State governments. This always causes me a little concern. I have mentioned it before in this House and I intend mentioning again that Western Australia returned an amount of $4.5 5m to the Federal Government. The money was given to the State Government for a specific purpose- Aboriginal housing. Aborigines are now camped in tents on the Anglican church property in Guildford because they have nowhere else to live. There is not sufficient money at a time of economic recession when many people are unemployed, industries are crying out that they cannot sell their goods and land is available. The State Government said that because these conditions did not exist it could not expend the money given to it by the Federal Government. So Aborigines in Western Australia are without housing purely because of the maniacal Premier there. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! {: .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator COLEMAN: -- I beg your pardon, **Mr President.** I retract that statement. The Premier in Western Australia does not see fit to regard Aboriginal people as Australian people requiring the same facilities as are available to other Australians. What have we got in Queensland with the banana benders? With all due respect to my colleagues on this side of the House, perhaps the biggest rort in Commonwealth-State relations is to be found in the relationship between the Queensland Government and the Federal Government. Money has been given to Queensland as part of a total grant to fund women's refuges in Queensland. The Queensland Premier has said that there is no way the women's refuges will get any money out of that grant. Now the Federal Government has said: ' We will leave the money with Queensland. It may retain the money and use it for other purposes, and we will try to find other ways to provide money by way of direct grant to women's refuges in Queensland.' What a farce Commonwealth-State relations are under this Federal coalition Government. The Prices Justification Tribunal has been weakened by this Government in its attempts to make businesses believe that it was on their side and to assure consumers that it was definitely working against them. It extended the amount of annual turnover which required investigation by the Prices Justification Tribunal to $30m. Originally a $20m annual turnover was the criterion. Now it is $30m. A lot of companies now find themselves outside the jurisdiction of the Prices Justification Tribunal. In a speech to the Australian Liberal Students Federation in Sydney on 19 May, the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** said: >Liberal ideas and ideals, which originally emerged in opposition to autocratic power and entrenched privilege, are of the greatest relevance to the issues and problems facing contemporary society; to the problems of human freedom; to the problems of the relationship between the individual and the l arge organisations that dominate our society; to the problems of inequality and disadvantage; and to the problems of achieving meaningful change and reform. > >In the last 1 8 months since being elected, this Government has acted to bring about reforms which implement Liberal principles, which translate liberalism into reality. We have acted to increase individual freedom and choice, to provide effective assistance to people who are disadvantaged or in need - Tell that to the Aborigines in Western Australia or the women's refuges in Queensland. He went on: to provide equality before the law - I mentioned equality before the law and the court's decision on the payment of unemployment benefit to Karen Green. The Prime Minister said that his Government had acted to provide equality before the law, so one can only assume that there will be equality, on the offchance that the Director-General of Social Security agrees with the law. The Prime Minister went on: to preserve fundamental civil liberties and to encourage individual initiative. In the social welfare area, for instance, the cornerstone of our approach has been to give priority of assistance to those most in need, and make sure that aid is provided to people in ways that increase their independence- in ways which allow them to choose how they will use the aid to most benefit themselves. Is that not marvellous? It nearly makes one get one's handkerchief out and weep. What about the attempt to remove the $40 funeral benefit for pensioners? Was that an enlightened Liberal act or was that the way pensioners chose how they would use the aid to benefit themselves most. The Prime Minister said: >We have acted to ensure that people dealing with the Government are treated fairly, promptly and according to the law. That adequate redress is available for those who have genuine grievances and to increase the citizens access to information ... the Government has also introduced various law reforms to enhance civil liberties. Unfortunately, they are too often taken for granted in Australia. Constant vigilance is required to see how they can be improved, and adapted as our society changes. We have introduced legislation on criminal investigation which is an important advance in civil liberties. We have extended legal aid, by redirecting it towards the most in need. Despite constraints in Government spending, our allocation to legal aid this year was increased 23 per cent. It was also taken away from an awful lot of people who felt they were in need of it. The Prime Minister went on: >We have instituted land rights legislation for Aborigines in the Northern Territory. We have undertaken to establish a Human Rights Commission to ensure compliance of Federal law with the UN International Covenant on civil and political rights. He also said: >This is an impressive list, and amply demonstrates the depth of our commitment to maintaining civil liberties and increasing Government's responsiveness to the people. Perhaps even more importantly it illustrates our capacity to translate that commitment into reality. The Government has also instituted historic political reforms. It really sounds very nice, but what has the Government really done in all these areas? Let us have a very quick look. What about Cedar Bay? What about Aboriginal land rights in most Australian tribal areas, and in particular Borroloola? What of the liberties of individual Australians, allegations concerning phone tapping by the Central Intelligence Agency, etcetera? The list is endless. Over the last 1 8 months we have seen a conglomeration of hotpotch legislation coming through the Parliament. We have seen members of this House and the other place sitting for days on end with very little business to be conducted. We are being kept away from our electorates and our constituents. Yet the Government says: 'We are doing all these marvelous things'. Finally I touch very briefly- other honourable senators have already spoken on this- on East Timor. Members of the Government have mentioned in speeches in this House their disappointment at the inaction of the Government in accepting its responsibility towards the East Timorese people; the families of the 5 Australian journalists who were killed in East Timor; people like Jim Dunn and other people who have travelled to Portugal to get evidence from East Timorese who left their country, their homes and their families behind to live in some sort of freedom rather than live under the oppression of an Indonesian tyranny which has taken over their country, and virtually stripped it of all the good and supplanted it with all the evil. My concern arises from the *East Timor News* No. 7 of 1 9 May 1977. In an article headed 'Australian Government and Oil Companies Grab Timor Fields' that newspaper states: >The granting of licences to U.S., British and Australian oil companies to explore for oil in leases 100 miles off the coast of East Timor, was 'an arrogant act to rob the East Timorese people of their birthright' the Campaign for Independent East Timor said on 1 1 May. 1 wonder what our reaction would be if we allowed a country such as Indonesia to issue to other governments and oil companies licences simply to come in and take the oil from our fields off the coast of Australia. I know that we have in Western Australia a government that has done pretty well at selling off most of the State and most of the wealth of the State. But how would we feel as a nation if we allowed companies from other countries simply to come in and grab what they wanted and leave behind what they did not want or what they did not feel they had any use for? I think it is time that we stopped shilly shallying around and it is time that this Government stopped shilly shallying around and came out with a definitive statement on East Timor so that we would know once and for all that it is not worthy enough to be sitting on the Treasury benches of this Parliament. The Government is not worthy enough to tell us that these are the things that it has done in the past 18 months, when documents can prove otherwise, when people can prove otherwise, when the unemployed can prove otherwise. {: #subdebate-74-0-s6 .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator YOUNG:
South Australia -- It is the right of the Opposition on all occasions to criticise the Government, but on some occasions it would be pleasant to see the Opposition criticising the Government constructively. It has been interesting to take note of the comments made in this debate by some members of the Opposition presenting their case. None of them has stated the clear facts in relation to government policies and government fiscal policies which have been propounded since the Government came to power in 1975. At that time this country was facing an economic crisis; people were told that we would have a long hard battle but that the Government intended to act responsibly and not try to play politics with the economy. That has been clearly shown, and it will be recorded in history. But what is also being shown, and shown very clearly, is the fact that at last the indicators show that there is economic recovery in Australia. I admit that we still have the tragedy of unemployment, but we inherited the unemployment problem. It is an aftermath of inflation. If one looks at the economic history of the world one finds that the employment situation is the last to recover from a depression, call it what you will. On this occasion we have been faced with inflation. Although that it not a depression, we have had an economic crisis from which we are now emerging. But we still face the problems, the traumas, the tragedies and the inhumanities of unemployment. I am delighted to be part of a government which can clearly show that by its policies Australia is again emerging to economic stability. Much emphasis today is given to and the spotlight has been placed upon many of the statements made by President Carter of the United States of America about the energy shortage in that country, the heavy dependence of the United States upon imported crude oil and the concern at the dependence of that gigantic country whose requirements of overseas crude oil run into many millions of barrels of oil per annum. It is estimated that in 30 years time, unless more finds are made, the overseas crude oil requirements of that country will be practically depleted. Not only the United States but also the world at large is facing a crisis at the present time. Australia has to realise that it has grave problems which it has to face. Unfortunately not enough people are conscious of the situation. Australian energy needs to some extent for transport, for electricity, for industry and for domestic uses break up into the following figures: Some 50 per cent of our energy requirements come from crude oil, 40 per cent from coal, and the other 10 per cent from natural gas, hydroelectricity and so on. We also face the bleak prospect of growing dependence upon more imported crude oil. At the present time we in Australia produce something like 70 per cent of our crude oil requirements. But it is estimated that, by the year 1 985, because of the depletion of our existing oil fields, our production will be down to about 25 per cent to 30 per cent of our requirements. That is the position we will face if no more crude oil is found in Australia. In that case we will have greater dependence upon overseas supplies and increased imports. Of course, one can turn to alternative sources of energy. One could refer to such things as an increase in the electrification of railways. One could mention the greater use of liquid petroleum gas. There are many other energy sources to which I will refer later. We in Australia have been very fortunate with regard to our supplies of natural resources. I refer not only to crude oil and natural gas but also to many other minerals. We have had available cheap crude oil in Australia. The local price to the producer is $2.33 a barrel which is sold to Australia at something like $4.30 a barrel landed on the coast. In comparison imported crude oil costs approximately $12.50 a barrel. The bill for the 30 per cent-odd of crude oil that we import at the present time amounts to some $805m. But I emphasise the point that, if we were not 70 per cent self sufficient, our present bill for imported crude oil would be in the vicinity of $ 1,200m. That is a fantastic amount of money. If we take it a little further -I will be mentioning this matter again later- we find that, working on the usual 5 per cent increase in price per annum and working on the basis that we do not find any more oil deposits, by the year 1985 our import bill will be some $4,000m per annum. That is a big figure. I recall that a $4,000m loan caused consternation throughout this country some short time ago because of the exorbitant figure involved. But we will be facing an import bill for crude oil of some $4,000m, not once but per annum. We in this country have been fortunate in that we have had available to us cheap crude oil which in turn has meant cheap petrol for the people. But basically that has had 4 effects. Firstly, it has helped Australia economically because Australia is so dependent upon transportation. Secondly, it has also encouraged an increased usage of petrol. Many people take for granted the supply of petrol. The cost has not been exorbitant, so to some exent one could say that there has been an excessive usage, if not a wastage, of petrol in Australia. Thirdly, it has not encouraged but rather discouraged the development of alternative energy sources. Fourthly, it has discouraged oil exploration and production in this country. So, we have to look very seriously at the situation because there is a need to conserve our crude oil and there is a need for further encouragement to look to alternative energy sources. Also there is a desperate need to encourage further oil exploration within Australia. That is an area that for too long has been allowed to run down in this country. Debate interrupted. {: .page-start } page 1294 {:#debate-75} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-75-0} #### Overseas Loans -East Timor {: #subdebate-75-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! It being 1 1 p.m., in accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate I formally put the question: >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-75-0-s1 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland -- I want to refer to a case that has attracted a lot of public attention over the last year or two, and that is the alleged loans scandal. I want to refer to the involvement of a gentleman named Todd, a gentleman name Bjelke-Petersen and particularly a gentleman named Wiley Fancher. Somebody somewhere authorised **Mr Fancher** to carry out certain investigations into alleged loan scandals. Whether it was this Government, the Queensland Government, or individual members of both governments or either government, there has been quite a deal of political speculation and apparently some people, either in this Government or perhaps in both Governments, have repudiated some of their former friends and have refused to pay their accounts. The stage has now been reached where 2 people have been declared bankrupt. Honourable senators will remember that Paddy Field, who came into this chamber as a very temporary senator, was told that all of his accounts for expenses in moving from the ordinary civilian job that he occupied to the exalted position of senator would be paid. We know that the State Government refused to pay his accounts, and the legal bill was subsequently taken up by this Government and paid. We know that when **Mr Fancher** left Australia he took with him large sums of money. We know that there is a law in this country that says - {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Baume: -- How do you know, Senator? You are making the allegations. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- I am making the allegations. He admitted it publicly and people who are friends of his have admitted it publicly. The Government decided to take no action on it. That is fair enough. I do not intend to quarrel about that now. In one of the airports from which this particular gentleman departed there is a sign which says quite clearly that the limit of Australian money that one can take out in notes, coins, etc. is $250. All right, the Government forgave him for it. That is not part of the quarrel. There is a much bigger part of the quarrel. Let us look back and see who this **Mr Fancher** is. Later I will ask to have incorporated in *Hansard* some documents which I have shown both to you, **Mr President,** and to **Senator Webster,** which basically tell the history of his financial involvements. They are factual because they were taken when he was examined financially in the court in Townsville a few days ago. In late 1 964 a report appeared in a newspaper. Somebody asked **Mr Fancher** why he came to Australia. He said that he wanted to get away from America, amongst other reasons, because he was worried that his son- then eight or nine years of age- might be corrupted by female negroes when he grew up and he did not want that sort of thing. He had heard that in this country we knew what to do with our blacks. I want to quote from an article in the *Age* of 1 1 May 1976 which refers to my colleague in another place, **Mr Barry** Cohen. I will quote only pan of the article because I do not want to delay the Senate unduly. It said that **Mr Cohen** had referred to an article in a Sydney newspaper. It went on: >Headlined A Refugee from the Gallant South, the article quoted **Mr Fancher** as stating that he migrated to Australia to avoid living beside Negroes. He was quoted: > >Ah like a nigra in a nigra 's place and that ain 't next to my family ... Ah don t mind mah boy playing ball with a black kid after school, but ah don't want him mixing socially with them as he grows up. The blacks there have no moral standards. ' > >He was quoted as saying civil rights movement had communist backing. > >The situation is getting real bad in Selma,' the account goes on. 'Ah might come home and find demonstrators in a tent in mah yard. I shall not read the rest of the report, but **Mr Cohen** suggests that he should have taken that gentleman on one of his trips around Torres Strait and let him make those statements there. **Mr Richard** Todd, whose name is familiar to everybody on the Government side of the chamber, said that he had documentary proof that he was owed $US17,500, the equivalent of $A 13,300 at the rate of exchange which applied at that time which was 8 May 1976. A newspaper report states: >He said his requests for payment had been ignored by the Premier's office because, he had been told, the Australian Government refused to allow the **Mr Bjelke-Petersen** to pay them. > >It does not make sense that **Mr Bjelke-Petersen** and the Prime Minister, **Mr Fraser,** would allow this to get to the point it has got to. **Mr Todd** told **Mr Ian** Hicks of the *Sydney Morning Herald* this by telephone from California. The report continues: >He said he had been told that **Mr Fraser** had 'sold **Mr Bjelke-Petersen** down the river, . . . That sounds a little bit like last Saturday when the boot was on the other foot. The report continues: {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . the Queensland Premier stood 'a very good chance of losing his job.' **Mr Todd** said his source for these reports was **Mr Wiley** Fancher, an American who had been sent by **Mr Bjelke-Petersen** to Europe to gather evidence on last year's Connor-Cairns loan affair. **Mr Todd** said **Mr Bjelke-Petersen** had telephoned him in October 'to hire me as his financial adviser'. His firm of investment brokers, Whitney, Todd and Co., had also received cables from a Sydney law firm, and from **Mr Fancher.** I think that that Sydney law firm might have now gone bankrupt. The report continues: >He had then received telephone calls from **Mr Fancher,** a Mr Spann- He is a senior public servant in Queensland- and **Mr Bjelke-Petersen** himself- 'or, at least, that is who he said he was, ' **Mr Todd** said. He said he had agreed to spend 3 days in Australia but that after that the trip was cancelled. So the saga goes on. Finally, **Mr Todd** whistled for his money. The *Courier-Mail* of 10 May 1976 in its leading editorial headed 'Now the Todd affair '-again I shall quote only a little of it -stated: >In fact, **Mr Fraser** probably was as much surprised by the Todd correspondence as **Mr Whitlam** was. > > **Mr Bjelke-Petersen** needs to explain his contact with **Mr Todd** in full and frank detail, including his version of the events involving **Mr Todd** concerning payments for investigations. I think the same sort of explanation would be appreciated by **Mr Wiley** Fancher. The editorial goes on: >Particularly he needs to explain for whom he was actingfor the State Government, the National Party, or himself. **Mr Bjelke-Petersen** in a letter to **Mr Todd,** appointed him the Premier's financial adviser on the loan-raising efforts of the Whitlam Government, the Arab 'funny money' affair. But the Deputy Premier and Treasurer **(Sir Gordon Chalk)** - He has now retired- says this appointment never came before State Cabinet. It is significant too that it appears that the Wiley Fancher affair did not go before the State Cabinet or before the National Country Party in Queensland. I assume that it did not go before either the Opposition of the day or the then Government of the day in Canberra. The editorial goes on: >Even at the time of the loans spy mission late last year, and the unnecessary recall of the State Parliament in the week before the Federal election, it seemed that the Premier had acted unwisely. That is a very charitable remark. The editorial continues: >Last week 's events tend to confirm this. It is history how the Whitlam Government behaved foolishly and deceitfully in the loans affair, but no personal corruption of the type **Mr Bjelke-Petersen** was seeking was ever proved. Nothing was ever proved either by Wiley Fancher or anybody else who set off on this great saga of spy hunting. A paragraph in the *Australian* of 10 May 1976 stated: >The Queensland Premier, **Mr Bjelke-Petersen** said yesterday he had acted as a concerned member of the Loan Council in employing American merchant banker Richard Todd to conduct inquiries into the loan-raising activities of the former Federal Labor Government. The article goes on in a similar vein for another 2 or 3 paragraphs. That is a background history to some degree of Wiley Fancher and also of **Mr Todd.** What I propose to say tonight concerns the telephone bills of the Fancher family. Both Fancher and Todd were involved in overseas trips together between 6 November 1 975 and 1 6 November 1975 to pursue the so-called loans affair. Fancher is alleged to have paid Todd $13,488 for this trip. Apparently the money was paid out before the trip. The authority for that claim is the *Courier-Mail* of 8 May 1976. As I said a few moments ago when **Senator Baume** interjected, Fancher was alleged to have taken large sums of Australian money out of the country. And, as I said at that time, to do so was illegal. Fancher and the Premier of Queensland both indicated that the moneys paid for these investigations came from private sources and not from State funds, according to articles in the *Courier-Mail* of 7 May and 8 May 1976. A butchering firm engaged in the wholesale, retail and export trade, Tancred Brothers, had something to do either with the cashing of cheques or with the collection of the money for these infamous trips. In May 1976 5 letters were released at a news conference which showed that the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser),** the Leader of the National Country Party **(Mr Anthony)** and the Treasurer **(Mr Lynch)** had secretly been engaged in a muck raking expedition and were using the Queensland Premier to do their dirty work. In other words, in this case my friend Holy Joh, as I affectionately call him, was the fall guy. These letters were issued by **Mr Richard** Todd who, as I said a moment ago, was a key figure in these events. I shall outline the main points of the 5 letters. A letter dated 14 November 1975 from **Mr Bjelke-Peterson** to **Mr Todd** appointed **Mr Todd** as a financial adviser. Incidentally, a copy of that letter was published in a section of the Press. There was a letter dated 28 November of the same year from **Mr Rae,** who is now **Sir Wallace** Rae, the Queensland Government representative in London, to **Mr Todd,** thanking him for his efforts and terminating his services as financial adviser. There was a letter dated 12 March from **Mr Todd** to **Mr Bjelke-Petersen** asking for money and stating that the doors had been open for financing on a top of the table basis and everyone had been left standing waiting. There was a letter dated 12 March from **Mr Todd** to **Mr Fraser** enclosing details of his correspondence. There was a letter dated 27 April 1976 from **Mr Todd** to the Governor-General, **Sir John** Kerr, stating: >It looks as if the Whitlam, Connor, Cairns fiasco of 1975 will be secondary to the 1 976 mess when it hits the papers. I might say that a letter was shown to me by one of the bigger cattle men of Queensland at the time allegations were being made, but as it came from a very confidential source I merely sighted the letter. It showed that **Mr Wiley** Fancher was conning people at that point of time- not people in the Labor Party but people in the National Country Party, particularly the cattle growersabout how he could raise $ 1 ,000m on the international money market. He did a very good conning job too. I actually physically saw that letter. I do not have the permission of the very successful cattle man to use his name because I was not able to contact him today. It was factual; I actually sighted it. On 10 May 1976 the Premier of Queensland indicated that the investigation of the loans affair was his duty. The newspaper which reported his statement indicated that Richard Todd was not employed as an agent of the Queensland Government. It stated also that the Premier had employed **Mr Todd** privately. As I mentioned a few moments ago, the Premier is a member of the Loans Council and acted in this capacity, or indicated publicly that he acted in this capacity, when he started his famous loans investigation. In the *Courier-Mail* of 8 May 1976 **Mr Wiley** Fancher stated that he had neither received nor sought any payment for his part in the investigation. He said he had never contacted the Deputy Prime Minister, **Mr Anthony,** or the Treasurer during his visit to Zurich. He stated also that he had contacts with the State Government. Yet on the Channel 9 program *A Current Affair* on 10 May 1976 the Deputy Prime Minister, **Mr Anthony,** indicated that he had received a number of phone calls from both Fancher and the Premier with regard to this affair. In a recent Press statement he said that he had a great interest in the matter because he thought it was worth pursuing. **Mr Todd** indicated that Fancher rang Anthony, Lynch and the Undersecretary of the Queensland Premier's Department from the Ascot Hotel in Zurich. **Mr Anthony** affirmed this in an article in the *Courier-Mail* on 7 May 1 976. Yet on 11 May 1976 in the *Sydney Morning Herald* he denied ever having known or spoken to **Mr Fancher.** At a bankruptcy hearing in the Townsville Supreme Court on 10 May 1977, which commenced at 10 a.m. and at which members of my staff were present taking shorthand notes, **Mr Wiley** Fancher was questioned about a substantial telephone bill in the name of **Mrs Aileen** Harris. **Mrs Harris,** who was his bookkeeper, married **Mr Fancher** on 7 May 1977, so from here on I may be a little mixed up because **Mrs Harris** is now **Mrs Fancher.** For the information of the Senate, I have details of a considerable number of overseas telephone numbers to which calls were made and for which accounts were received by the Atherton telephone account No. 911811. A silent line was also installed at the same address. The number of that silent line was 911711, but only a couple of thousand dollars went to that account. The other number ran up a telephone account of a fairly large sum of money- some $ 14,000-odd- and I will give the correct figures in a few moments. **Mrs Aileen** Harris, as she then was, was a bankrupt in the North Queensland district and was formerly employed by **Mr Wiley** Fancher, who is also now bankrupt. Both of them lived at 15 Banksia Street, Kirwin, which is a suburb of Townsville, but they formerly lived at 3 1 High Street, Atherton, which is where the 2 telephones were installed. On more than one occasion, and particularly during her investigation in the court, **Mrs Harris** referred to the National Party and to **Mr Bjelke-Petersen** and **Mr Fraser** in connection with the account. I will give a few more details of that in a moment. Some of the details of the telephone calls are very interesting. On 19 February 1 976 a call for $46.80 was made to an American number, 9357824. On 20 February 1976 a call for $15 was made to London 8363224. On 20 February 1976 a call for $44.40 was made to Switzerland 7481820. On 21 February 1976 3 calls were made to the same number in Switzerland costing $111.60- a long telephone conversation$5 1.60 and $54. On 24 February 1976 a call was made to the United States of America, 9357824- that is the number we had before- for $25.20. Calls were made to Switzerland again on good old 7481820 for $61.20, and to the United States of America to 9354262 for $46.80 and $32.40-two telephone calls on the one day. On 27 February, the next day, there were 2 calls to the American number 9354262 for $44.40 and $32.40. That was well over $100 worth of telephone calls on one day, which is big business when you are chasing up loan scandals. On 5 March a call was made to the American number 9354262 for $39.60. On 7 March 1976 there was a call to Switzerland 7481820 for $46.80. On 22 March a call was made to London 9592285 for $42 neat, and that was a reverse charge call. On the same date there were 2 calls to Switzerland to two different numbers, the first for $87.60 to 271710 and the second for $42 to 7481820. On 27 March 1976 we went international again and called Austria 22422 for $54 neat. On 28 February 1976 and 13 February 1 976 we went back to that holiday playground, the bankers' refuge, Switzerland, when there were calls to 7481820, 271710 and 270466 for $37.20, $54 and $54 respectively. On 20 April 1976 there was a call to Austria 24317 for $66, another lengthy telephone call. On 15 October 1975 and 12 October 1975 calls were made to the United States of America to the same number, 3424490, both for $72, both lengthy conversations indeed. The total of the account at that number, and I will not give all the details, was $14,920.30. I think that the 30c was for a wake-up call. There are a number of other calls which I feel should go into the record. These were made to American telephone numbers. I shall read the number and the number of calls to it: 8633889-1 call 2236000-1 call 6802500-5 calls 7 14.5485459-30 calls It must have been important. I hope it was not Jimmy Carter's number. 6873950-3 calls 5585133-2 calls 2241824-1 call 2326616-2 calls 6956200-2 calls 212.5233853-1 call They are good STD numbers if anyone wants to check them out later. 9357824-19 calls 9354262-34 calls These 2 numbers are apparently adjacent numbers. They are not the sort of numbers one would ring to order pies for tea. 9854749-2 calls 8724869-1 call 3424490-39 calls It sounds as though that might have been the American FBI. 756 1059-12 calls 2840737-5 calls 6234815-1 call 7563300-4 calls Who received these calls? Was it Richard Todd or his banking associates? Incidentally, most of these telephone numbers were rung between 26 October 1975 and 4 March 1976 when the great so-called spy investigation was taking place. On 14 February 1977 one telephone call was made from Atherton 911811 to Canberra 47 6244. Now wait for it, it is not the Prime Minister; it is the Lakeside Hotel telephone number. I wonder if it was for a politician. If it was for a politician, who was he or she? That is very simple. If someone wants to do a Pinkerton job on that, he will be able to check with the Lakeside Hotel. I am sure that the hotel will be most co-operative. I refer now to all the reverse charge telephone calls from the public telephone booths in Townsville to Atherton. Most of the calls cost from $1 to $3 and were placed in December 1975, February 1976 and March 1976. Obviously, somebody in Townsville was continually calling the number either to find out how the Fanchers' health was or to find out what the progress was or to find out if they had found any spies. The loans investigation was shaping up. Someone might like to ring some of those numbers. It would be interesting. I shall not delay the Senate much longer. This saga is not only fascinating. It is a disgraceful thing to happen in a country such as Australia. **Mrs Aileen** Harris, as she then was, **Mr Wiley** Fancher 's bookkeeper and a long time associate of **Mr Fancher,** filed for bankruptcy in the Townsville court. Her creditor was the Australian Government through the Postal and Telecommunications Department and the debt relates to a bill for $14,920.30. 1 mentioned that the 30c was for a wake-up call. **Mrs Harris** filed for this debt against the estate of Fancher. This was the only way in which that she could make some endeavour to get back her money. The telephone number in question is one at Atherton that I mentioned earlier. **Mr Fancher** indicated that this number was at the residence at 31 High Street and was the Mount Mulgrave Co. Pty Ltd telephone number. That was the first company with which he was associated when he first came to Australia and which is now bankrupt. However, **Mr Fancher** had this telephone number transferred from Mount Mulgrave Pty Ltd into the name of **Mrs Harris** when he realised that he would be making the overseas trip and would need personal contact in Australia whilst he was slinking around other countries looking for all those crooks in the Labor Party. **Mr Fancher** stated that **Mrs Harris** was not expected to pay the telephone bill and he himself was not expected to pay it. He was very hesitant during his examination in the court and very wary when answering questions relating to the telephone bills. He would state only that a government had indicated that it would pay all the expenses. **Mrs Fancher** nee Harris, when she was going through her examination was less hesitant. She was quite ready to fit the Government with the moral responsibility for paying the bill. **Mr Fancher** would not indicate whether it was the State or Federal Government that was referred to and was very evasive when questioned on these matters. Some of the answers that **Mr Fancher** gave when queried about the phone account were glib. He said: >At the time I thought it wise to keep a separate account for this purpose. We used her name just as a convenience. I quote his own words: >The phone was a tool of the Government, a Government request and a Government utility. Now both the State Government and the Federal Government deny all knowledge of the matter. They are backing away from it. The total amount related to the use of the phone for this period was $ 14,920 plus a 30c wake-up call. According to my information, **Mrs Harris** when filing for bankruptcy indicated on the forms that **Mr Fancher** had agreed to pay for telephone calls made by or for him for political purposes. When questioned **Mr Fancher** agreed that he had a moral responsibility to organise the payment of the account but indicated that all parties were aware that the actual payment was going to be met by another source- a government source. He stated that telephone calls were mainly collect calls from overseas in connection with investigation of the loan affair. That is not quite true, of course. A lot of them originated from his own phone. **Mr Fancher** stated that he first became aware of the Australian Government's attempt to raise loan money overseas during one of his overseas trips when he himself was attempting to raise finance for Queensland cattlemen. That is the loan of $ 1 ,000m to which I referred earlier. He disclosed this information and indicated that he was then requested to pursue investigations into these matters. Fancher would not directly indicate who requested him to undertake the investigations. He indicated that he cashed a personal cheque for $770 at a Zebra motel, possibly in Australia. He could not remember where. He also stated that this was the only expenditure he undertook personally during the whole of the overseas investigations. This is the bloke who was held up as an angel by the Premier of Queensland. We were told that he was one of the greatest blokes who would save Australia. He was supported by **Mr Malcolm** Fraser, by **Mr Anthony** and by other members of the Government. These events can be related to the time when honourable senators opposite brought Khemlani here and took him over to the Wellington Hotel and fed him potato chips. **Mr Fancher** stated that his accommodation, airline tickets and other costs incurred during his overseas trip while investigating the loans affair were met from another source. What is that source? Where did all this funny money come from? He would not indicate the total cost or the approximate total cost of his trip when questioned about it, nor would he indicate who was financing the whole affair. However, from early Press reports and associated evidence, it appears that **Mr Bjelke-Petersen** or the Cabinet were behind it. When questioned on the duration of his trip, **Mr Fancher** indicated initially that he was away for only an approximate period of 2 weeks but later indicated that he was away for close on 4 weeks. He was a bit nervous during this investigation. He was accompanied by **Mr Richard** Todd for part of the trip. **Mr Todd** had complained. He thought that Fancher was bringing a Government Minister with him. When **Mr Fancher** arrived, there was no Government Minister. The nearest that they got to a Government Minister was when they saw **Mr Wally** Rae- he was then a Minister- in London. **Mr Wally** Rae apparently was not too enchanted with the fact that he had been given the job. **Mr Fancher** described Todd as a man with banking affiliations. The term he used was 'merchant banker'. When queried about the duration of his overseas trip and how this coincided with the telephone calls to the Atherton telephone number 911811, **Mr Fancher** indicated initially that he was overseas for a great proportion of the time from September 1975 to April 1976. That is supposed to have covered a 2-week trip. He went on to say that the great bulk of the overseas telephone calls to Atherton 911811 were during the September 1975 to April 1976 period. When queried on this bill and who was to pay for it, Fancher stated: >I am looking to the Government to pay the telephone bill, the phone belongs to the Government. I hope that honourable members opposite do not leave him sitting with this $15,000 bill because he says that they owe it to him. He went on to say: >I accepted calls on behalf of the Government. I had no personal involvement. **Mr Fancher** indicated that he was directed to accept a number of overseas telephone calls from people he did not know or people of whom he had not heard. This was on the understanding that the telephone bill would be met from other sources. Of course, they were Government sources. Fancher was asked whether he wrote a letter to the Crown Solicitor stating: >I am writing to accept full responsibility for the charges of telephone account (for Atherton 91 181 1) listed in the name of Aileen Harris. Fancher indicated that he did write this letter as at the time he was under the impression that whilst he accepted that he did have a moral obligation to **Mrs Harris** to pay the telephone bill, he was still sure that a person or group or source would meet the telephone bill as promised. This man said so at an open inquiry. There must be better con men on the other side of this chamber than the Premier of Queensland because he thought the Government was going to pay all his debts for him. Fancher indicated that his private unlisted number in Atherton- 91 1711- had been made available to the Press and other connections without his permission. Then he accused Telecom of giving out his silent telephone number. Telecom presented Fancher with a bill for $2,142.76 for this phone. There were 2 reminder calls in the cents. Fancher stated that a number of overseas calls came in on this number and were accepted by the people manning the phones. I wonder who were the people manning the phones. He must have had some Australian Security Intelligence Organisation people there to give him a hand. {: .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney: -- And the CIA. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -And the CIA. Oh, good. That is a nice admission coming from the Government side. Not only did the Government have ASIO giving him a hand; it had the CIA as well. The bill accrued to this number should be debited against 91 1811 -this is part of his bankruptcy proceedings- and not against his private number. **Mr Fancher** stated that his telephone bill for the previous corresponding period was only $164.48. It included one and a half reminder calls. That was when he was living as a respectable grazier until you people on the Government side got him involved and caused him to become bankrupt. Fancher indicated that the difference for this bill for over $2,000 was solely as a result of overseas telephone calls made for and on behalf of the people for whom he was acting. Honourable senators will recall, as I said earlier, that he was working for the Government. On 12 May 1977 the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, **Mr Eric** Robinson, indicated that the Federal Government had nothing to do with the investigations and as such would not pay the phone bill. The total cost of both these bills was $17,063.06. At another bankruptcy hearing **Mrs Fancher,** formerly **Mrs Aileen** Harris, was questioned. During the hearing **Mrs Harris** made a number of allegations regarding the role of the Federal Government in the loans affair investigation carried out by the Premier, **Mr Todd** and **Mr Fancher.** The reason for the 2 phones in Atherton was that one of the phones was tapped. That is why they got a second phone. So the allegation from the other side of the chamber about both ASIO and the CIA being involved is probably right. However, most of the calls on the private number were overseas calls anyway. The following are statements made by **Mrs Fancher,** and I quote direct: >We hoped to keep 2 separate accounts, one for the Federal Government and one for **Mr Fancher;** and also to keep people from listening in that were listening in. **Mrs Fancher** indicated that her husband received overseas telephone calls at the request of the Federal Government, and she said: >Morally it is not **Mr Fancher** who should pay for the calls but it is the Government who should pay. Later in the court hearing **Mrs Fancher** said: >The phone was used by **Mr Fancher** for the benefit of Government persons. Then she said: >Messages that came over that telephone were waved in court rooms and in Parliament by politicians. Now we know when Ministers opposite refuse to provide honourable senators on this side with information where they are getting some of the documents they are waving around. It is because you are all on the one side. In winding up there are a few things I would like to note. These phone calls came from the United States of America, Austria, the United Kingdom, West Germany, New Guinea, Ireland- southern, I think; not northern Ireland-Switzerland and various places in Australia. **Mrs Harris** said: >Most of them were for the Government's benefit. In summary **Mrs Harris** indicated that she attributed the bankruptcy to Fancher 's use of the telephone for the benefit of Government persons and for Government purposes. Perhaps the questions that I should ask are these: In view of the statements made under oath by both **Mr Fancher** and **Mrs Fancher** that the present Federal Government had instructed them to make their phone available for Government business and that **Mr Anthony** and others did in fact talk with the Fanchers about their affairs, despite their contradictory statements in May 1 976, why has the Deputy Prime Minister denied any knowledge of Fancher and/or involvement in the affair? Why has the Federal Government refused to pay a bill incurred at its instructions, for its work and for information received and used by the Government? If that is not where the debts originated, can I perhaps then ask why the State Government has repudiated responsibility? Somebody consciously is responsible for this debt. I cannot imagine Wiley Fancher, with his background of establishment associated with his cattle properties and what have you, being involved. I will not hold up the Senate, but I have a document which gives the background of the companies. It is a factual document and contains what was stated in the Bankruptcy Court. I seek leave to have it incorporated in *Hansard.* I have shown it both to you, **Mr President,** and to the {:#subdebate-75-1} #### Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) {: #subdebate-75-1-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is leave granted for the document to be incorporated? There being no objection, leave is granted. *The document read as follows-* >WYLIE FANCHER- BANKRUPTCY HEARING, SUPREME COURT, TOWNSVILLE, 10 A.M.- 12.30 P.M. 10 MAY 1977 > >He became a permanent resident in Australia in December 1965. While in the U.S.A. he was a grazier and manufacturer of carbon products, coke etc. > >On taking up residence in Australia he became involved in a number of pastoral and grazing companies in North Queensland. Although most of his activities in these companies came after December 1965, he had become a Director of Mt Mulgrave during a visit to Australia in July 1965. During this visit there was an actual cash transaction which enabled him to become a Director before becoming a fulltime resident of Australia. > >On arrival in Australia Fancher put a $130,000 into a Company called Yarraden Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd (this owned the Yarraden Station only) and another company called Yarraden Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd was formed to cover stock etc. which were on this station. This company was formed on 5 May 1966 and consisted of two shares, one of each which was held by Messrs Clinton and Carter, on behalf of Fancher. These companies were subsidiaries of Mt Mulgrave, a company of which Fancher bought into in Mid 65. rancher's partners in Mt Mulgrave were the Livingstone family (all of whom have now died, the last Livingstone died in April 1977). > >On 10.1 1.72 a new company, Cool Why (?) Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd was formed with 10,000 shares of which Fancher held 999 shares personally, another 999 shares were held by a proxy. > >Think Clinton and Johnson were Directors of this company. Probably acting on behalf of Fancher. This company Cool Why held the following properties-Holroyd River, Kendall River and Yarraden (owned by Fancher) also has a half interest share in Cool Why. > >Mt Mulgrave (after Fancher became involved) was the parent company for the following subsidiaries-Nychum Yarraden and Hamen and Sons Pty Ltd. > >Corporate Affairs showed on 1 December 1971 that Fancher was appointed Director of Hamen and Sons Pty Ltd and at that time three members of the Hamen family resigned as shareholders as a result of Mt Mulgrave purchasing that Company. Office record does not show any record of Fancher or Mt Mulgrave as holding any shares. Fancher replied that he did hold copies of the transaction and that his accountant held the originals. > >This company is registered at 197 Denham Street, Townsville. > >Fancher was both Director and Secretary of this Company, and on 15 December 1976 his son James Howard Fancher took over both these positions, enabling him to take control of assets. > >Whylie Fancher filed for bankruptcy in the court of Townsville the following day the 16 December 1976. > >Another Director of Hamen and Sons is from Connolly, Suthers and Walker (solicitors). > >Question: Has Hamen and Sons acquired any additional grazing properties or further assets. Answer: Grazing property at Stanford Downs- purchase price $100,000, Hamen and Sons furnished some finance for first mortgage- didn't acquire any titles. (Think-titles were in Fanchers name). On 5 July 1976 records showed this property was transferred from Company to Fancher. On 3 1 August 1976 it was transferred to J. M. Livingstone. > >Fancher's neighbour **Mr Rand** of Silver Plains homestead because of certain problems asked Fancher to form a company to help manage Silver Plains Station. On 29 May 1972 Fancher and Clinton formed the Rand Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd. Fancher held 5 1 per cent and Rand 49 per cent. Silver Plains adjoined Fancher's property at Yarraden, and part of the agreement was that Fancher would allow some of his cattle to graze on Silver Plains. Fancher would also meet all capital improvements on the Silver Plains property but was to be reimbursed at a later stage by Rand. Silver Plains property was leased by Rand Pastoral Co. to run cattle owned by Rand and also some cattle owned by Fancher. Profits from cattle sales were to be shared. 400 head of cattle were moved from Fancher's properties in the North to Camooweal Station (which is owned by Tancrads) near Julia Creek. These cattle were to have been fattened before being sold. Fancher originally advised the Taxation Department that these cattle had been sold and as such the expected monies from this sale were credited to his income and tax accordingly. However, the cattle were not sold and still remain on this property. Fancher advised the Taxation Department of this (he applied for a re-assessment) to date he has not had his tax reassessed. (The Queensland Government through its Taxation Department is thought to be the liquidator against Yarraden because of the company's failure to pay the tax which resulted from the expected sale of these 400 cattle. (Think the outstanding tax was $12,000). Note: this may be revised when it is shown that the cattle had in fact not been sold, they are still out on the property. A public Accountant who was stationed in Townsville but now operating as Secretary to Tancrad Brothers is currently representing Fancher with respect to these 400 cattle at Camooweal Station. > >On 23 October 1 975 Mt Mulgrave Pty Ltd went into liquidation. At this time Mt Mulgrave Station was in the process of being sold to Carrington Development Corp. Pty Ltd. (Savage controls this company) for a sum of $450,000. Fancher mentioned that there were problems with this transaction and Livingstone (?) could not meet certain instalments (Fancher digressed a bit here and started talking about this person was interested in sponoring America Cup challenges hence he was short of the necessary instalment money, and some mention was made of including boats as assets). > >On 16 June 1976 Yarraden Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd went into liquidation. The creditor being Taxation Department. (This relates to the 400 cattle which the Tax Department thought were sold and as such were income to this company.) > >Early in 1976 (March?) Hamen and Sons Pty Ltd was deregistered and when questioned Fancher admitted this but indicated that the company was re-registered on the stock exchange shortly afterwards. The Public Curators office has no record of the re-registration (this was stated at the hearing by the Public Prosecutor). > >Various Assets > >Fancher's assets- in the Yarraden Patrol Co. P/L (?) $500 Value of company shell. -in the Yarraden Pastoral Holding Co. P/L $30,000 approx. value -in Rand Pastoral Co P/L $20,000 approx. value of improvements to Rand property by Fancher which are repayable to Fancher by the Rand family -in monies owed to Fancher by Mobil Oil $3,300 (note: Mobil have no record of this.) -in contingent assets $50,000 paid to Hamen and Sons Pty Ltd. > >Mulgrave Pastoral Co. P/L went into liquidation because of monies owing to Mobil Oil Co. ($2,000?). The Public Curator indicates that this Company has not supplied its records or its books and Fancher indicates that the Melbourne Accountant Buckholder, now holds these books and was supposed to have made them available. > >Another creditor is International Harvestor Credit Co. A trucking partnership between John Harris and Fancher involved an old prime mover which was passed over to Fancher in lieu of a debt of $2,500 owed to him. In 1973 Fancher traded this prime mover in on a new prime mover from International Harvestor Credit Co. He received $5,000 trade-in, the balance on the new prime mover was financed by hire purchase from International Harvestor Credit Co. In 1974 Graham McKinnon of McKinnon Transport at Mareeba undertook to purchase this prime mover from Fancher with initial payments of $3,000 to be paid in two instalments of $1,000 and $2,000 respectively and with McKinnon to take over hire purchase payments. McKinnon made the first payment of $1,000 but no more and a few weeks later the truck was wrecked on the week-end by McKinnon. International Harvestor Credit Co. held Fancher liable for the outstanding monies which totalled $8,080. 1 1 . This is despite the fact that McKinnon had agreed to take over the hire purchase payments, however, apparently nothing was signed between McKinnon, Fancher and the International Harvestor Credit Co. > >Fancher is pursuing legal action to get monies from McKinnon with regard to this matter. > >Another claim lodged against Fancher's estate relates to an outstanding debt of $760 for cartage. This debt was lodged on behalf of A. Peck and Co. Fancher indicates that this debt is not a personal debt and in fact relates to one of the companies. > >It appears that Fancher was in the habit of using personal letterhead when involved in company business and he thus explains many of the debts attributed to him are in fact company debts. However, the Public Prosecutor that Peck and Co. were under the impression that they were dealing with Fancher personally. All correspondence to Peck and Co. was on personal letterhead. > >Another creditor against Fancher's estate is **Mr Roy** Gunn and **Mrs Maggie** Gunn (deceased)? This relates to a sum of money to be paid to these people as a deposit for the use of Lickims Field (?) Pastoral lease. Fancher indicates that the lease was being leased on behalf of Yarraden Pastoral Holdings however all correspondence between the Gunn family and Fancher was on Fancher's personal letterhead. A draft purchase agreement was drawn up between Yarraden Pastoral Holdings Co. Pty Ltd and the Gunn family. Fancher was nominated as negotiator acting as the agent on behalf of Yarraden Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd. for this transaction. > >Another creditor against Fancher's estate is Edgar William Foster who has claimed for wages for a period of 22 weeks at $66.00 a week and holiday pay at $348.50. Foster's present address is c/o Stanford Downs. Fancher indicated that this was not a personal debt and was monies owing by Yarraden Pastoral Co. However, he admitted that he had paid Foster personally on a number of occasions in the past. > >Another creditor is Coopers and Lybrand (Townsville) Chartered Accountants. The amount owing this case is $80.00 and Fancher admits that this is a valid debt but claims that he has never received an account. > >Another creditor is John Arthur Wise and Lloyd Stanley Twine (?) who claim an outstanding debt of $865.25 this being for surveying of a property owned by Fancher companies. Fancher indicates that the property surveyed adjoined Strathmore Station and as such half the bill should legally be met by the owners of Strathmore Station who are the Boyer family. However the surveyors indicated that they believed that they were dealing with Fancher personally but Fancher indicated that the reason he used personal letterhead because no company letterhead correspondence was available at that time. > >The Public Prosecutor indicated that two CBA Bank cheques had been paid into Fancher's personal account. These cheques were for monies collected as rent for use of 3 1 High Street, Atherton. This house was in fact owned by Yarraden Pastoral Holdings Co. Pty Ltd and not Fancher, and Fancher indicated that this was an oversight on the bank's behalf and the cheques should not have been paid to him. This property was sold at the direction of the Taxation Depanment in order to recoup monies owing to the Taxation Depanment by Yarranden Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd which were the owners of this property. > >Fancher indicated that present assets of his companies which are now in liquidation include 7 horses, 2 trail bikes and 1 Datsun utility, all of which are now on Stanford Downs Station with the exception of one motor bike which is being repaired by Wayne Dosieo (address- c/o P.O. Atherton). > >Stanford Downs appears to be the only operating property and is owned by Hamen and Sons. There appears to be a prospect of certain parties purchasing this property from Hamen and Sons. A **Mr Hunt** has paid Hamen and Sons $120,000 and this is thought to be a down payment on the purchase figure of $530,000 (?) for this property. > >There appears to be some uncertainty about this sale. However, $120,000 has been paid by **Mr Hunt** to Hamen and Sons and Fancher's son now has control of this money in his position as Director and Secretary of Hamen and Sons. > >Apparently certain monies are owing from Hamen and Son and on 21 March 1977 the official receiver wrote to the company asking when these monies would be paid. Fancher's son who is Secretary of Hamen and Sons has apparently not replied to any of the correspondence. {: #subdebate-75-1-s1 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- I thank the Senate for its patience, but this is a matter that has to be investigated. There has to be an answer by this Government. I do not expect the Minister to reply to me tonight, but I hope that when *Hansard* is published tomorrow he will investigate the background of these matters and that either this Government or the Premier of Queensland will make a true and proper statement about how Todd, Fancher and other persons became involved in this under-the-counter search for a non-existent scandal involving a Labor government. {: #subdebate-75-1-s2 .speaker-K1M} ##### Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria -My motivation for speaking in the adjournment debate this evening comes from an article in the *Sydney Morning Herald* yesterday in which it was reported that **Mr John** Dowd, a lawyer and member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, had called for an inquiry into the events of East Timor. **Mr Dowd** recently returned from Portugal. He went there in his capacity as President of the Australian section of the International Commission of Jurists. He claims that whilst there he received evidence which more than confirms that found by **Mr Jim** Dunn who went there earlier this year. Because of that, **Mr Dowd** has called for an independent international public inquiry into the alleged atrocities in East Timor in 1975 and since. I understand that **Mr Dowd** applied for permission from the Indonesian Government to visit East Timor prior to going to Portugal but that permission was refused by the Indonesian Government. Latterly the Australian Government sent two of its embassy officials to East Timor, but so far I am not aware of any public report that has been made to the Australian people on their investigations there. I think that the Australian populace is entitled to ask: Did these officials find something in East Timor that was contrary to the official line? Is something being kept from the Australian public. My colleague, **Senator Coleman,** earlier this evening mentioned the collusion which latterly has been disclosed between the Australian Government and the Western Australian Government in the granting of leases to American, British and Australian oil companies to explore for oil within 100 miles of the coast of East Timor. I simply ask the Government: Does this imply back-handed recognition of the Indonesian claim to East Timor? What has the Government to say in reply to **Mr Dowd's** call for an inquiry and in reply to **Mr Jim** Dunn's evidence of alleged atrocities? Why has there been no report from the 2 government officials? Why is there secrecy at government and departmental level? Why is the truth being withheld from the Australian public? Is this the way that we as a nation can expect our foreign policy to be conducted for ever and a day? Why cannot the Australian people be informed by way of an inquiry about the truth of the events in East Timor so that they will be better informed and able to play their part in the future determination of our foreign policy and the future role of this nation in relation particularly to countries close at hand? Why are these matters left to the bureaucrats hiding behind their secret veils? Is the future of our relationships with our neighbours in the near north to be left to the grey figures behind the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Joint Intelligence Organisation, the Central Intelligence Agency and other cloak and dagger bodies, as well as the Department of Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs? Surely, after 200 years as a white settlement in an Asian outpost, the people of Australia are mature enough to be given a view behind much of the secrecy that has prevailed about such events as East Timor and, prior to that, such events as occurred early in the terrible tragedy of Australia's involvement in Vietnam so that they can have, as I said before, some say in where we go from here in the area of foreign affairs policy. lt is only if the government of the day will come clean on what has happened in East Timor that the nation as a whole will in turn be able to assess better where we should go. I think that unless the call by **Mr Dunn,** the call by **Mr Dowd** and the call by senators on both sides of this chamber is heeded, Australia will go forward with bigger and better blunders in its foreign policy. {: #subdebate-75-1-s3 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Government · LP -- There have been 2 speeches on the adjournment debate tonight, one by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, **Senator Keeffe,** and one by **Senator Primmer.** I will deal firstly with **Senator Primmer** 's remarks. I am not aware of anything that **Mr Dowd,** MLA, New South Wales has said. I will draw the attention of my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs **(Mr Peacock)** to the remarks made by **Senator Primmer** tonight. I must confess that I had some difficulty following the matters raised by **Senator Keeffe.** I was not as fortunate as some honourable senators who were able to go to sleep. The last time this matter was raised in the Parliament was, I think, at least 12 months ago when from memory, **Mr Richard** M. Todd was thrashing around and making some allegations. As I recall the cu>cumstances the Leader of the Opposition in the other place **(Mr E. G. Whitlam)** sent one of his secretaries overseas to gather all this wonderful secret information that was available. Again I am relying on memory. Photostats purporting to be copies of originals of the evidence that **Mr Todd** held was tabled later in the other place. If ever there was a physog it was that whole sorry episode. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: -- It looks as though you wasted your money on some of them. {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS: -I did not purchase any of them, nor did the Government of which I am a member. This was one of these great hoo-has. I wonder why the honourable senator raised this matter tonight because I should have thought that if anything was as dead as Caesar, it was Wiley Fancher's so-called relationship with Richard M. Todd & Co and their alleged relationship with the Fraser Government. This was denied at the time, as it has always been denied, and there has never been a shred of evidence brought to bear. I have no knowledge of the relationship, if any. with the Queensland Government and, quite frankly, I am not interested. I think, in fairness to the Queensland Government, that there has been no evidence that I can recall which would substantiate any sort of relationship between **Mr Fancher** and the Queensland Government. 1 think it is harking back on old ground. A fascinating number of telephone numbers have been bandied about back and forth. I am surprised that the honourable senator has not rung them to find out who is at the other end. He might get a surprise. One never knows whom he might find at the end of a telephone. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: -- You will have to do it yourself. {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS: -I do not want the information. I think it is totally irrelevant and I would not waste taxpayers money trying to ascertain the identity of these people. I do not know which Minister the honourable senator would like to look at this matter. I assume that it is not my colleague, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications **(Mr Eric Robinson),** although a lot of telephone numbers have been quoted. Surely it is not me because I cannot see where this matter would fall anywhere under my portfolio jurisdiction. I doubt whether my colleagues **Senator Carrick** or **Senator Cotton** would be involved. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: -- It could be educational. {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS: -- The honourable senator says that this matter could be educational. It is rather difficult because **Senator Primmer** raises a matter which homes in on foreign affairs. It is quite right that the Minister should investigate the remarks made by the honourable senator. However I am somewhat at a loss to know which Minister the Deputy Leader of the Opposition feels ought to look at this matter and into which portfolio it falls. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- It is the Treasurer. {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS: -Is it the Treasurer? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- We are down $14,000, are we not? {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: -It is $70,000 to be precise. {: .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator WITHERS: -That is really a debt due to a statutory corporation. Surely it is a matter to be resolved between the subscriber who enters into a contract to rent a telephone and pay calls and the statutory corporation. I feel it ought to be left between those people. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 1 1.46 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1304 {:#debate-76} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: {:#subdebate-76-0} #### School Leavers: Employment Schemes (Question No. 7) {: #subdebate-76-0-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 March 1977: >What schemes are currently in existence under the patronage of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations to stimulate employment opportunities for school leavers. {: #subdebate-76-0-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >There are at present several programs which include among their aims the stimulation of employment opportunities for school leavers. The Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training (CRAFT) is intended to encourage employers to employ and train more apprentices and to improve the quality of their training. It provides tax-exempt rebates to all employers who release their apprentices to attend, or study by correspondence, basic trade courses in any proclaimed apprenticeable trade. In addition, CRAFT also provides tax-exempt rebates to employers to offset the cost of full-time off-the-job training to approved standards. > >Additionally, special arrangements are also made to utilise spare training capacity available in Government departments and instrumentalities for training of apprentices. Under this arrangement private employers sponsor apprentices for full-time training during the first year of apprenticeship at a Government establishment. The cost of wages during this first year is met by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. The only costs borne by the employer are for workers' compensation premiums. At the end of the first year of training the apprentices return to their sponsoring employer with readily usable skills to complete their apprenticeship indentures. > >School leavers who find difficulty in obtaining employment may qualify for in-plant training assistance under NEAT, in which a subsidy can be paid to an employer prepared to provide on-the-job training to the individual concerned. They may also qualify for assistance with short courses in educational institutions designed to facilitate their entry to the workforce. During such courses they would be paid a living allowance; the cost of fees, books and equipment may also be paid. > >In addition, special arrangements have been made within the NEAT System by which a subsidy of up to $61 per week can be paid to employers who are prepared to provide training and work experience for a period of 6 months to young people in the15- 19 years age group who have been away from full-time education and registered for employment with the CES for at least 6 of the past 12 months. This program aims to ensure that school leavers do not build up an excessively long period of unemployment which can handicap their future employment prospects. > >Aboriginal school leavers are assisted by specialist officers of the CES who are concerned with the employment problems of Aboriginals. In the course of their duties they visit employers to obtain suitable vacancies for permanent employment and also training positions, subsidised under the > >NEAT System, which equip Aboriginals with the skills required for permanent employment elsewhere. > >The Community Youth Support Scheme (CYSS) which has now been in operation for some 3 months is an initiative designed to complement other Government action already taken to increase employment and training opportunities for young people. The Scheme provides financial assistance to community groups, including recognised youth organisations for supportive programs and services to the young unemployed. {:#subdebate-76-1} #### Redlynch Aboriginal Reserve (Question No. 19) {: #subdebate-76-1-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977: >What action has the Minister taken to assist in overcoming the shocking conditions at Redlynch Aboriginal reserve in north Queensland, outlined in an article entitled 'Redlynch Aboriginal Reserve "Explosive" ' which appeared in the Cairns Post dated 5 February 1977. {: #subdebate-76-1-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: >In 1973 my Department provided a number of caravans for use by the residents of Redlynch. In April 1976 my Department was approached by the Redlynch community for assistance in the acquisition of land which could be used in the short term as a caravan site and in the longer term as an aged persons home. > >With the assistance of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission a suitable block was acquired in June 1976 and building applications and applications for the connection of water were subsequently made to the Mulgrave Shire Council. > >Water was connected to the property in November 1976. > >My Department has finance available for the immediate construction of the proposed aged persons home. Detailed plans and specifications are now being prepared. It is hoped that construction may be able to be commenced later this year. {:#subdebate-76-2} #### Growth Centres Program, Queensland (Question No. 21) {: #subdebate-76-2-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 March 1977: >Did the former Prime Minister write to the Premier of Queensland on 21 August 1973, advising that the sum of $4.4m had been provided for growth centres in Queensland, at Townsville, the Fitzroy region, and the Moreton region. If so, what action has been taken relating to the three proposed growth centres since the dispatch of the letter concerned. {: #subdebate-76-2-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >There has been correspondence between the Commonwealth and the State in the context of the growth centres program but I do not intend to comment on the details of that correspondence. However, the honourable senator will be aware that, on 5 November 1976, the Minister for Environment. Housing and Community Development announced the Government's policy on growth centres. The Minister also announced that other issues in the context of the Government's decentralisation policy were continuing to be reviewed. {:#subdebate-76-3} #### Mareeba Aboriginal Reserve (Question No. 74) {: #subdebate-76-3-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What funding has the Australian Government provided to Aboriginals in the Mareeba Shire in Queensland since December 1972. 1. In the light of the proposed eviction of ten Aboriginal families by the Mareeba Shire Council from council houses at the Mareeba Aboriginal Reserve, what action can the Minister take to ensure that the families concerned are adequately housed. {: #subdebate-76-3-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Direct grants totalling $876,053 have been made as follows: State grants totalling $49,000 have been made to the Mareeba Shire Council for housing. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Eleven families have received eviction notices and my Department is consulting with the tenants and the Mareeba Shire Council in an attempt to avoid evictions. The Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Legal Service is also acting for the Aboriginal families. Public Service: Remote Locality Policy (Question No. 95) {: #subdebate-76-3-s2 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 8 March 1977: >Did the Public Service Board recently formulate a new policy for remote locality leave and assistance for fares for postal and telecommunications staff, without reference to Australia Post or Telecom Australia. If so, (a) why were Australia Post and Telecom Australia not consulted, (b) will Australia Post and Telecom Australia be consulted, (c) will the relevant trade unions be consulted; and (d) when is it expected that the new policy will take effect. {: #subdebate-76-3-s3 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Public Service Board has advised that the answer is no. The Board does not formulate conditions of service for postal and telecommunications staff. This is the responsibility of the management of Australia Post and Telecom Australia which in formulating such conditions have regard to approved conditions in the Commonwealth Public Service. {:#subdebate-76-4} #### Thursday Island Hospital and Darnley Island Clinic (Question No. 106) {: #subdebate-76-4-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What funds has the Federal Government provided for the (i) Thursday Island Hospital, and (ii) the Darnley Island Clinic in each year since 1 970. 1. Has the Department of Health made investigations into the death of a baby at the Darnley Island Clinic recently. If so, (a) what are the details and (b) what further action does the Minister intend taking as a result of the investigations, in particular with relation to the administration of drug suppliers for clinics in the Torres Strait region by the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement. {: #subdebate-76-4-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (i) Since 1970 the Commonwealth Government has provided the following funds to the Queensland Government for the Thursday Island Hospital: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) (ii) No Commonwealth Government funds have been provided for the Darnley Island Clinic since 1970. Funds for this purpose have been provided from State sources. 1. (a) and (b) I am, of course, concerned at the death of any baby but the following up of any death in a State is, in fact, a matter for the State Authorities. I am sure they have made any necessary enquiries. {:#subdebate-76-5} #### Exports of Live Fauna and Animal Skins (Question No. 115) {: #subdebate-76-5-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What are the complete details of the export of live native fauna during 1976. 1. How many kangaroo, wallaby and wallaroo skins were exported in 1976. 2. From which States did the skins come and to which countries were the skins exported. 3. Has some of the information sought in (2) and (3) been denied to the public. 4. Has certain data in the Bureau of Statistics' releases, not included in the public documents, been subsequently released. {: #subdebate-76-5-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The following information is provided in answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Australian Statistician has provided the following information: > >1 ) Exports of live native fauna during 1 976. > >and (3) Export of Kangaroo, wallaby and wallaroo skins during 1976. > >The only relevant items for which statistics of exports are separately recorded are pickled kangaroo hides and undressed kangaroo and wallaby fur skins, details of which are summarised below. Exports of kangaroo and wallaby skins in other forms, e.g. as undressed hides or as dressed fur skins, are not recorded separately but are included in broader commodity items along with other kinds of hides and skins. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. All the above figures are available to the public. However, there is one related commodity, namely kangaroo leather, for which detailed statistics of exports cannot be released because, under the confidentiality restrictions of the Census and Statistics Act 1 905, to do so would reveal information relating to individual exporters. It is possible that at some time in the past some enquiries have sought information about this commodity; if so the request would have been refused. 1. Detailed statistics for the items shown above, like those for many other items of data compiled by the ABS at a fine level of detail, are not included in the ABS's regular monthly statistical bulletins, but they are published in the more detailed annual statistical bulletins. However statistics for these items are available in full detail monthly on request and can be supplied to individual enquirers who require them. {:#subdebate-76-6} #### Pacific Island Countries: Australia's Relations (Question No. 142) {: #subdebate-76-6-s0 .speaker-KPV} ##### Senator Knight: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Minister seen reports that a team of New Zealand parliamentarians, industrialists and trade unionists visited Pacific Island countries in August 1976, and that a Pacific Affairs Co-ordinating Committee made up of departmental officials was reportedly established to recommend steps to strengthen New Zealand's relations with the Pacific Island countries. 1. ) Has Australia examined this initiative. 2. Is there any proposal for Australia to take similar action to strengthen relations in the South Pacific. If not, will the Government consider such a proposal. {: #subdebate-76-6-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) I am aware that a New Zealand group comprising parliamentarians from both sides of the House and representatives of the Federation of Labour and the Manufacturers' Federation visited the South Pacific in August last year. I understand the group's objective was to inform itself on all aspects of New Zealand 's relations with the countries visited and to explore the development of employment opportunities in the region. The establishment of the Pacific Affairs Co-ordinating Committee was announced by the New Zealand Minister for Immigration in April last year. This Committee of officials was established to help co-ordinate New Zealand's activities in various fields as they affect their Pacific island neighbours, particularly in fields such as trade, economic co-operation, immigration, health, defence and transport. This Committee is to be distinguished from the separate Pacific Islands Industrial Development Committee whose objective is to foster economic development in the South Pacific by encouraging New Zealand companies to establish joint ventures there. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. and (3) Australia has examined the New Zealand initiative. However, from Australia's point of view we do not believe that the inter-departmental committee approach, which is the essence of the Pacific Affairs Co-ordinating Committee, would necessarily be more effective than the current approach of the Australian Government to developing Australia's relations with the countries of the South Pacific. There is already close interdepartmental consultation on such matters. {:#subdebate-76-7} #### Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Apprenticeships (Question No. 163) {: #subdebate-76-7-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs since 1 July 1970. 1. 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. 2. 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. {: #subdebate-76-7-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: >The Department of Aboriginal Affairs was not created until December 1972 and it has since that date not had any apprentices employed. {:#subdebate-76-8} #### Bundaberg Irrigation System: Government Assistance (Question No. 182) {: #subdebate-76-8-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 8 March 1 977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What assistance does the Federal Government intend providing to the Bundaberg Irrigation Scheme, in the light of comments by the Chairman of the Bundaberg Irrigation Committee, **Mr E.** H. Churchward, referred to in the Brisbane *Telegraph* dated 24 February 1977, that the scheme needs $70m, at the rate of $ I Om per year, to maintain it in operation. 1. What funding assistance has the Federal Government provided for the Bundaberg Irrigation Scheme in the past. {: #subdebate-76-8-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Responsibility for water projects is essentially a matter for the State governments and, under the new Commonwealth/States financial arrangements, they are now in a better position to order their own priorities in water resource matters. The Commonwealth has fully met its obligations to the Queensland Government in respect of the Bundaberg Irrigation Project, which was for grants totalling $ 17.2m towards specified works in phase 1 of the project. The estimate by **Mr Churchward,** as quoted in the Brisbane *Telegraph,* refers to all works in both phase 1 and phase 2 of the project. There have been many requests by the State for further assistance for the project, and the Government will be considering this matter in the context of its preparations for the 1977-78 Budget. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The Commonwealth provided grants of $12. 8m under the Queensland Grant (Bundaberg Irrigation Works) Act 1970 and $4.4m in an amendment to that Act in 1974, towards the cost of Monduran Dam, Gin Gin Channel and the main pumping station. {:#subdebate-76-9} #### Aboriginal Land Fund Commission: Allegations (Question No. 186} {: #subdebate-76-9-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March: >Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the article in the Melbourne *Age* dated 24 February 1977, entitled ' Bjelke closes land loophole', in which a spokesman for the Queensland Premier claimed that the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission was 'dodging the Constitution so Federal enclaves can be set up' in Queensland, and that agents of the Commission may 'use unofficial names to get around the State's refusal to transfer leases to blacks'. If so, (a) has the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission undertaken any illegal or undercover activities in Queensland, and (b) what action is the Minister taking as a result of the allegations made in the *Age* article. {: #subdebate-76-9-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: >Yes. > >No. > >I have recently written to the Queensland Minister for Lands, Forestry, National Parks and Wildlife Service, **Mr K.** B. Tomkins, about statements he was reported in the Press to have made about the activities of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission in Queensland. {:#subdebate-76-10} #### National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (Question No. 189) {: #subdebate-76-10-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977: >Has **Mr David** Anderson resigned as a member of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee. If so, for what reason. {: #subdebate-76-10-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: > **Mr Anderson** submitted his resignation in a letter to the Prime Minister dated 3 March 1977. In that letter he indicated that he was resigning in order to pursue an academic career. {:#subdebate-76-11} #### Beef Prices (Question No. 191) {: #subdebate-76-11-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 9 March 1977: >Will the domestic price of beef in Australia rise because of the increasing quantities of Australian beef sent for export, and the resultant upward pressure on prices, as was suggested 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 price rises for beef. {: #subdebate-76-11-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >I refer the honourable senator to the answer I provided to his similar Question No. 193 of 9 March 1977 concerning mutton and lamb prices. As I stated in answer to that question, retail meat prices inevitably must increase to reflect the very sharp cost increases which have occurred in recent years at the farm level and for slaughtering and distribution of meat. A continuing upward trend in meat prices in the future cannot be avoided unless inflation in brought under control. {:#subdebate-76-12} #### Oil Exploration (Question No. 207) {: #subdebate-76-12-s0 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 8 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Does the answer to Senate Question No. 899 indicate that the Minister does not agree with the views expressed by leading oil industry personnel, such as **Mr Rick** Charlton of the Shell Company of Australia Limited, who have indicated that the chances of finding a major oil field in Australia are very slim. 1. Does the Minister's answer to Senate Question No. 899 indicate that the recently announced tax incentives are sufficient to find oil, even if the geological environment is unfavourable. {: #subdebate-76-12-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Acting Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) In the nature of things the chances of finding major fields must be less than for smaller fields. While a lot of exploration has already taken place in Australia, both onshore and onshore, there are still many prospective areas to be explored or to be more intensively explored, with reasonable prospects of finding worthwhile quantities of oil and gas. The offshore areas are considered to be the more prospective. In this respect regions remaining to be drilled include some of the less accessible and deep water areas. The incentives provided in the 1976-77 Budget were an important part of the Government's overall approach to create the necessary climate to revive and further encourage exploration. There are already clear signs that the Government's policies are having positive effects in this regard. {:#subdebate-76-13} #### Oil Reprocessing: Government Policy (Question No. 208) {: #subdebate-76-13-s0 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 8 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Does the Minister's answer to Senate Question No. 906 indicate that the Government does not view reprocessing as a priority conservation need in Australia. 1. Is the Government prepared to pay high costs for importing such oils in the future as they became scarcer, rather than reprocessing them now. 2. How does the Minister equate his answer to Senate Question No. 906 with his recent statements concerning Australia's moral obligation to sell uranium to an energy starved world. {: #subdebate-76-13-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Acting Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (I), (2) and (3) As pointed out in the answer to Senate Question No. 906, the Government is conscious of the arguments in favour of reprocessing of lubricating oil and some reprocessing does take place. However, complex issues are involved. On the one hand there are environmental and conservation aspects, and on the other important questions involving financial consideration for the industry. Also, in many respects, the issues involved fall within the jurisdiction of the States. In some European countries action has been initiated to encourage the collection and re-refining of waste lubricating oil. The Department of National Resources follows developments in regard to recycling very closely and the whole question is currently being reviewed. {:#subdebate-76-14} #### Australian Oil Resources (Question No. 209) {: #subdebate-76-14-s0 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 8 March 1 977: >In view of statements by oil experts indicating the unfavourable geological environment Australia affords oil explorers what does the Minister mean by 'significant quantities' of oil in his answer to Senate Question No. 899. {: #subdebate-76-14-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Acting Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >By 'significant quantities' of oil in my answer to Senate Question No. 899 I meant, as might be inferred from my answer, amounts of oil which, if discovered, would make a useful contribution to Australia's crude oil supplies. Parliamentary Pension: Family of late **Senator Greenwood** (Question No. 214) {: #subdebate-76-14-s2 .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator Walsh: asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 9 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What parliamentary and ministerial pension will be paid to the late **Senator Greenwood's** family. 1. ) Can that allowance be reduced if the widow or family is in receipt of other income. 2. What ex gratia payment has been or will be made by the Government. 3. On what basis was that payment determined. 4. What pension would the widow and three dependent children of a Commonwealth public servant receive from the Government. 5. To what extent would that pension be reduced if the widow was in receipt of $ 10,000 a year additional income. 6. What *ex gratia* payment would the Government make the Commonwealth Public Servant 's widow. {: #subdebate-76-14-s3 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Under the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act 1948, **Mrs Greenwood** is receiving an annuity equal to fivesixths of the rate of the retiring allowance that the late **Senator Greenwood** would have been entitled to had he retired on account of ill-health. 1. ) The Act requires **Mrs Greenwood** 's annuity to be: {: type="a" start="1"} 0. a ) suspended if she is elected to the Parliament; 1. cancelled if she becomes entitled to a retiring allowance under the Act in her own right; 2. reduced by any salary, allowance or pension arising out of service in a State Parliament; and 3. reduced by such amount as the Parliamentary Retiring Allowance Trust considers to be just where she also becomes entitled to a pension payable by the Commonwealth (other than a pension payable under the Repatriation Act 1922, the Repatriation ( Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956, the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962 or the Social Security Act 1947). 2. $25,000 paid in a lump sum; and $10 per week in respect of each of the two dependent children, payable from the date of **Senator Greenwood** 's death. Continued payment is subject to the provisions contained in the relevant sections of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. 3. Ex-gratia compensation cover has been available to senators and members pursuant to a Government decision in 1968. That cover is equivalent to that provided for death or injury under the compensation legislation applicable to Commonwealth employees (see page 3 of the 1974-75 Report of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation). The office of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation advised that had the late **Senator Greenwood** been an 'employee' for the purposes of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act, compensation would have been payable in respect of his death. In the light of this advice, it was decided to pay **Mrs Greenwood,** on an ex-gratia basis, compensation in accordance with the amounts provided for in the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act. 4. The maximum annual pension payable under the Superannuation Act 1976, where an employee has had less than 3 1 years' contributory service, to a widow and three eligible children is an amount equal to 70 per cent of the deceased's annual salary at date of death; the percentage is reduced when a child ceases to be an 'eligible child' for the purposes of the Act. 5. There are no provisions in the Superannuation Act 1 976 for reduction of superannuation pensions on account of the receipt of other income. 6. As a Commonwealth public servant would be covered by the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act, the question of an ex-gratia compensation payment would not arise. {:#subdebate-76-15} #### Unemployment Benefit: Withdrawals and Prosecutions (Question No. 219) {: #subdebate-76-15-s0 .speaker-RG4} ##### Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 10 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What percentage of unemployed persons receiving social security unemployment benefits have had their benefits withdrawn on the ground that they were not entitled to the benefit, in the last year. 1. ) Since 1 3 December 1975, how many people have been prosecuted for receiving unemployment benefits to which they were not entitled. 2. 3 ) What percentage was acquitted. {: #subdebate-76-15-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. During the twelve month period to 28 January 1977 approximately 765,000 unemployment benefits were terminated. Statistics of the number of terminations by reason for loss of entitlement are not maintained. However, it is known that during this period unemployment benefit was withdrawn from 32,945 persons as a result of field-officer checks, on the grounds that they were not entitled to the benefit. This represented 4.3 per cent of the total number of persons terminated from unemployment benefit (765,000) during the same period. 1. Statistics of prosecutions are recorded on a quarterly basis. In the period 13 December 1975 to 31 March 1977 352 persons were prosecuted for receiving unemployment benefit to which they were not entitled. 2. There were no acquittals in the same period. Seven cases were dismissed, however after the court found the charges proven but did not proceed to conviction. {:#subdebate-76-16} #### Aboriginal Student Grants (Question No. 237) {: #subdebate-76-16-s0 .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 15 March 1977. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Have there been any cutbacks in expenditure on Aboriginal student grants for secondary and tertiary students in 1977. 1. What is the number of applications for Aboriginal Student Grants for each State for 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977. 2. How many grants have been made in the years 1973-1977. 3. Is the Department aware of increases in the number of Aboriginal students reaching tertiary standard. {: #subdebate-76-16-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Funds totalling $ 1 2.832m have been approved for the Aboriginal secondary grants and Aboriginal study grants schemes for the 1976-77 financial year compared with an expenditure of $10.34m in 1975-76. The allocation of the available funds between the two Schemes is such that it is expected that all eligible applicants under both schemes will be catered for in the remainder of this financial year. 1. Number of new applications for Aboriginal Study Grants: Statistics are not available on the number of applications for Aboriginal Secondary Grants from 1973 to 1977, but numbers of students in training are given in the reply to (3). {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 3 ) Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme: Number of students holding grants at some time during the year. Comparable figures for 1 977 are not yet available. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Yes. The honourable senator may be interested in the following statistics: Number of students holding Aboriginal Study Grants and undertaking tertiary level courses. {:#subdebate-76-17} #### Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Inquiry Into Claims (Question No. 259) {: #subdebate-76-17-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 15 March 1977: >Is an inquiry currently taking place within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, following claims by fourteen Aboriginals employed by the Department relating to promotion. If so (a) what are the details of the claims concerned; (b) when did the inquiry commence; (c) when will the inquiry conclude; (d) who is conducting the inquiry; (e) to whom will the report of the inquiry be presented; (f) is it intended that the report of the inquiry will be made public; (g) what liaison has taken place between the Department and the Public Service Board over this matter; and (h) have similar allegations been made at any time in the past three years. If so: (i) what are the details; (ii) were inquiries undertaken; and (iii) if inquiries were undertaken, what action was taken as a result of the inquiry or inquiries concerned. {: #subdebate-76-17-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: >There is no such inquiry. The position is that concern has been expressed by some Aboriginal officers to myself and the head of my Department about promotion opportunities in particular cases and in general. Departmental inquiries have confirmed the existence of problems of some Aboriginal officers in achieving their expectations within the terms of the Public Service Act. Certain measures have been used, and remain available, to help resolve these problems, Le. staff development and training courses, both within and outside the Department. As an example, the Public Service Board was approached to approve the Certificate in Community Development, a special course for Aboriginals sponsored by the South Australian Institute of Technology and paid for by a Commonwealth Grant-in-Aid and the Board has agreed. > >It is the Department's aim to supplement such measures wherever possible with due regard to the rights of other officers. There is continuing contact with the Public Service Board on this matter and on further areas in the Public Service, in Statutory Authorities such as Land Councils and in Government-financed organisations such as Aboriginal Hostels Limited, so that the policy of self-management may be put into effect. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: Seminar on Privacy (Question No. 261) {: #subdebate-76-17-s2 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 March 1977: >Is the Attorney-General aware that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development will be conducting a seminar on privacy in September this year, at which it is probable that a convention guaranteeing peoples' right to privacy from the growing traffic in information via the computer will be drawn up. If so, will Australia be represented at the seminar. {: #subdebate-76-17-s3 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is organising a symposium on 'Transborder Data Flows and Protection of Privacy' to be held in Vienna from 20 to 23 September 1 977. > >The preliminary program circulated in relation to the symposium states that the intention is to provide a forum for the presentation of information and experience of public and private users of international data networks. There is no indication of any intention to draft a convention. > >The question of Australian representation at the symposium has not yet been determined. {:#subdebate-76-18} #### Aboriginal Affairs: Fund Allocations to Queensland Government (Question No. 267) {: #subdebate-76-18-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 15 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What funds were allocated by the Commonwealth to the Queensland Government for Aboriginal Affairs matters in (a) 1972-73, (b) 1973-74, (c) 1974-75, (d) 1975-76 and (e) 1976-77. 1. What amount, if any, from (a), (b), (c) and (d) remained unspent by the Queensland Government at the end of each respective financial year. 2. If funds did remain unspent in any of the periods in question, was the Queensland Government wholly responsible or did the Australian Government over-allocate funds to Queensland for Aboriginal Affairs. 3. What amount from (e) remains unspent at the present time. 4. Does the Commonwealth Government expect that the entire allocation for (e) will be spent by the Queensland Government in 1 976-77. If not, why not. {: #subdebate-76-18-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. -- 1972-73. $7,700,000: 1973-74, $9,957,000; 1974-75, $10,362,000; 1975-76, $10,156,538; 1976-77 (to 18.3.77), $4,817,414. 1. -- 1972-73, $2,273,903; 1973-74, $3,224,593; 1974-75, $2,473,628; 1975-76, $3,813,108. The amounts unspent at the end of 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 were carried over and spent in the following year. Of the $3,813,108 unspent at the end or 1975-76 Queensland State Treasury advised the Department's Brisbane office in February 1 977 that it would repay $ 1 ,7 1 3,578 to Commonwealth Treasury. The remaining $2,099,530 was carried over as in previous years for expenditure in 1 976-77. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Funds released to the Queensland Government were made at its request and on the understanding that the funds released would be used. 1. Of $8,303,575 programmed for release to Queensland in 1976-77, $2,450,712 had been paid to 31.12.76. Expenditure by the State to 3 1. 12.76 was $3, 1 83,955. 2. Yes. Working Party on Aboriginal Employment: Report (Question No. 269) {: #subdebate-76-18-s2 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 15 March 1977: >With reference to the Minister's reply to Question No. 990 relating to the Report of the Working Party on Aboriginal Employment (Senate *Hansard,* 5 October 1976, page 1003), what action has the Government taken as a result of the joint examination of the Working Party's Report by the Ministers for Employment and Industrial Relations, Social Security, Education and Aboriginal Affairs. {: #subdebate-76-18-s3 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: >The Report is still under consideration by Ministers. A statement will be made on action to be taken when this consideration is finalised. {:#subdebate-76-19} #### Freight Trucking Contractors Operating Between Brisbane and Darwin (Question No. 286) {: #subdebate-76-19-s0 .speaker-K2U} ##### Senator Robertson: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Minister ordered a Departmental inquiry into allegations made by a group of truck owners operating between Brisbane and Darwin against freight trucking contractors. If so, when does the Minister expect to receive the report on the inquiry and will he make it available to the truck owners. 1. What action does the Minister intend to take if the report suggests that certain of the practices adopted by the contractors infringe the law. {: #subdebate-76-19-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 asked my Department to look into the circumstances of these allegations and advise me on a number of aspects. I understand the allegations involve matters within the province of State governments and the portfolios of other Commonwealth Ministers and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment further. I have advised the truck owners accordingly. 1. ) As already mentioned, the allegations relate to matters of concern to other governments and portfolios and it is understood that the responsible authorities are in contact with the owners. There is no further action which 1 can take in these matters. Northern Territory: In-patient Charges in Hospitals (Question No. 288) {: #subdebate-76-19-s2 .speaker-K2U} ##### Senator Robertson: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 10 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Will the Minister give details of when new in-patient charges for people on third party insurance claims, workers' compensation, and people from overseas, will be implemented in hospitals throughout the Northern Territory. 1. Will people in these categories be able to claim on Medibank; if so, will the re-imbursement payments be the same as for other categories of patients. {: #subdebate-76-19-s3 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) New charges in the Northern Territory recognised hospitals for in-patients entitled to compensation or damages, or who are not eligible persons were gazetted on 7 April and the new charges were implemented from that date. The new charges per day are: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. People in these categories are generally not able to claim Medibank coverage. However, the legislation does provide that an application for Medibank eligibility may be made to the Health Insurance Commission by an overseas visitor. In general, such applications would only be approved in cases of genuine hardship or unusual circumstances, e.g. refugees. In addition, there could be a small number of cases involving patients who, although not Australian residents, pay Australian tax (including the Medibank levy) and, depending on the period of time that they have been paying Australian tax, these people may be eligible for Medibank coverage. AH people covered by Medibank are entitled to the same benefits-free standard ward accommodation and treatment in recognised hospitals and benefits in respect of professional services rendered by private practitioners. {:#subdebate-76-20} #### Northern Territory: Entitlement of Residents to Vote in Referenda (Question No. 289) {: #subdebate-76-20-s0 .speaker-K2U} ##### Senator Robertson: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 March 1977: >Were residents of the Northern Territory entitled to vote in referenda between 1901-191 1. If so, what change in their constitutional status has made it inappropriate for them to vote in subsequent, or future referenda. {: #subdebate-76-20-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Attorney-General has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: >Section 128 of the Constitution provides for proposed laws for the alteration of the Constitution to be submitted for approval in each State to the electors of each State qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives. Between 1 90 1 - 1 9 1 0 the Northern Territory was part of the State of South Australia, and accordingly persons resident therein were entitled to vote in referendums during that period. > >On the surrender of the Northern Territory to the Commonwealth by the State of South Australia and the acceptance thereof by the Commonwealth on I January 1911 under the Northern Territory Acceptance Act 1910, the Northern Territory ceased to be part of the State of South Australia, and accordingly the persons resident therein ceased to be electors of that State entitled to vote in referendums. > >The Constitution Alteration (Referendums) 1977 to be submitted to the electors of the States on 2 1 May 1977 will, if approved, entitle the residents of the Northern Territory, and also of the Australian Capital Territory, to once again vote in referendums on proposed laws for the alteration of the Constitution. {:#subdebate-76-21} #### Employment Statistics (Question No. 296) {: #subdebate-76-21-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 15 March 1977: >Does the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations produce a breakdown of statistics of unemployed persons into job categories for each employment district in Australia on a regular basis. If so, (a) how often are the statistics produced, (b) to whom are they made available, and (c) why has the Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce had difficulty in obtaining the relevant statistics for the Toowoomba Employment District, as was indicated in an article in the Toowoomba Chronicle dated 23 February 1977. {: #subdebate-76-21-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >My Department produces a breakdown of statistics of Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) registered unemployed by occupation for each employment office area in Australia on a regular basis: > >a ) the statistics are produced monthly; > >the statistics are available to all bona-fide enquirers on request; and > >based on my answers to parts (a) and (b), the Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce would not have difficulty in obtaining statistics for the Toowoomba Employment Office area as a whole. However, the Chamber of Commerce in Toowoomba has been seeking CES statistics of registered unemployed for the Toowoomba City Council area as a single entity disaggregated by age, sex and occupation. These data are not, and never have been, available cross-classified by occupation on a local government area basis. They are, however, available for males and females (both adults and juniors) and are presently collected 3 times per year as at end-April, end-July and end-October. These statistics are also available to all bona-fide enquirers on request. I understand discussions were held early in March between members of the Chamber of Commerce and officers of the Depanment of Employment and Industrial Relations as to the Department providing the Chamber with the requested occupational disaggregation. While not acceding to the Chamber's specific request, agreement has now been reached on the regular supply of suitable alternative and readily available labour market information. {:#subdebate-76-22} #### Native Dogs (Question No.311) {: #subdebate-76-22-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 16 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) For what reason did the then Minister responsible for the Australian Capital Territory on 3 January 1957 declare native dogs noxious animals. 1. What is the definition of the term 'native dog' as used in the A.C.T. Rabbit Destruction Ordinance. 2. Are kelpies and Australian sheepdogs covered by this definition. 3. Is the Minister satisfied that extensive research by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has rebutted the evidence that caused his predecessor in 1957 to declare native dogs noxious animals. {: #subdebate-76-22-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) An inspection of Departmental papers shows that the action was taken to clarify the position regarding noxious animals in the A.C.T. The term 'native dog' would appear to have been used to ensure that both dingoes and wild dogs were covered by the declaration. 1. 2 ) The definition in the Ordinance is: Native dog' includes any dingo or native dog or any dog whatever which has become wild. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The definition makes it clear that kelpies, sheep dogs and other domestic dogs come within the category of 'native dog ' only if they become wild. 1. The Minister understands that recent CSIRO studies indicate that in areas where game and other natural food is plentiful, native dogs tend to take this food in preference to domestic livestock. However, they have been known to cause damage to sheep even when other food is plentiful. The *attitude currently adopted by the* Department of the Capital Territory recognises that dingoes are part of the A.C.T. wildlife and should be protected as interesting and useful members of the fauna in reserves and similar areas. Domesticated dingoes are no greater threat to grazing lands than many other breeds of dogs and selective control measures should be applied to any wild dogs of all breeds when necessary. Royal Commission on Petroleum (Question No. 324) {: #subdebate-76-22-s2 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 16 March 1977: >Has the Government made any decision on the Fourth Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum, particularly the recommendation that an agency be established to regulate the pricing and marketing aspects of the oil industry. {: #subdebate-76-22-s3 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >The Government has under careful and detailed consideration the matters raised in the Fourth Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum including the recommendation for the establishment of a regulatory Agency. The Government's decision on the Commission s Fourth Report will be announced in due course. Overseas Medical Graduates, Registration in Australia (Question No. 330) {: #subdebate-76-22-s4 .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Baume: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has there been a large number of medical graduates from overseas who have registered in Australia in the past few years. 1. Is there any evidence that any of these registrations have been by means of forged documents; if so, now many registrations in each State have come within this category. 2. What safeguards are there to ensure that the documents produced by applicants for registration in the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory are genuine. {: #subdebate-76-22-s5 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The registration of medical practitioners is carried out by the individual State and Territory Medical Registration Boards which have provided information to me relevant to the question. > >1 ) The majority of Medical Boards do not have readily available statistics of the number of medical graduates from overseas who have been added to their Registers. In the data from some States, however, some increase in the number of registrations of overseas graduates can be discerned. > >All Medical Boards have advised that they are unaware of evidence to suggest that any of their registrations have been secured by forged documents. > >In the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory there are several safeguards against the acceptance of forged documents: > >All applicants are required to provide the originals of their degrees for personal scrutiny, although certified copies of the degrees may be accepted in lieu of the originals at the discretion of the appropriate Board. > >b) In the Northern Territory all overseas applicants are required to supply a signed photograph. > >In the Northern Territory all applicants have a personal interview with the Registration Board and in the Australian Capital Territory overseas applicants are generally required to attend in person before the Board before they are registered. > >If the Boards have any doubt about the bona fides of any applicant they seek confirmation direct from the registration authority of the country or State concerned. Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Officer Training in Victoria (Question No. 335) {: #subdebate-76-22-s6 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 22 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Victorian office of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs an officer on a Class 8 salary attending the University of Melbourne on a full-time basis, and will a second officer commence the same two year course in 1977 also on full salary. 1. Have similar study facilities been extended to any Aborigines employed by the Department in Victoria. 2. Are the costs of the salaries debited against the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, or are the costs being met by the Department of Education. {: #subdebate-76-22-s7 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) No Class 8 officer from the Victorian Office of Department of Aboriginal Affairs is attending University of Melbourne on a full-time basis. However, two former State officers, now on staff of DAA are attending the Melbourne University on a full-time basis. Both officers were granted awards under the Scheme of Assistance for Post-graduate Study in Social Work which is administered by the Commonwealth Department of Education. The awards were open to any qualified applicant and benefits include the payment of full salary. 1. ) Yes. An Aboriginal officer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in Victoria completed a Bachelor of Social Work Degree at the Melbourne University in 1976. Two others, Aboriginal staff members, are on full-time study, one is undertaking a Manager's Course with the National Fitness Council and the other is attending the South Australian Institute of Technology completing a two years course in Community Development. 2. For the officers mentioned in (1) above who remain officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs while studying full-time, it is administratively more convenient for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to continue to pay their salaries and obtain full reimbursement from the Commonwealth Department of Education. {:#subdebate-76-23} #### Public Service: Employment (Question No. 345) {: #subdebate-76-23-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 17 March 1977: >How many persons are employed by the Commonwealth Government and by Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth Government in (a) New South Wales, (b) Victoria, > >South Australia, (d) Western Australia, (e) Queensland, and (f) Tasmania. {: #subdebate-76-23-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Australian Statistician has advised me that: > >At the end of January 1977, total Commonwealth Government employment, in each State, including employees of statutory authorities and excluding members of the defence forces, was, in round figures, as follows: {:#subdebate-76-24} #### Department of Education: Promotion and Appointment of Women (Question No. 346) {: #subdebate-76-24-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 17 March 1977: >How many women were appointed to, or promoted to, senior positions in the Department of Education during 1976. {: #subdebate-76-24-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >The number of women appointed to, or promoted to, senior positions in the Department of Education during 1 976 was ten. > >Senior positions have been taken to include officers at or above the level of Education Officer Class 2 or Clerk Class 7. Economic Relations with ASEAN (Question No. 355) {: #subdebate-76-24-s2 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Since 1 January 1977, has Australia been invited to participate in, or attend ASEAN discussions about the reduction of tariff barriers in the ASEAN region and related matters; if so, when did Australian officials attend the meetings and which departments were represented? 1. Has Australia officially requested ASEAN or any of the member countries to be kept informed on the progress of discussions? 2. Has the Australian Government received any official reaction from ASEAN, or the individual member countries to impose quotas on and maintain tariffs on goods manufactured in those countries and exported to Australia. If so, what is that reaction? {: #subdebate-76-24-s3 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Australia has not been invited to participate in, nor has it sought to attend, ASEAN discussions on the reduction of tariff barriers in the ASEAN region and related matters. 1. No. 2. The ASEAN countries have made clear that they are interested in gaining greater access to the markets of developed countries, including Australia. This issue is among a number of issues which have been the subject of discussion in recent years between Australia and ASEAN countries. The Government is conscious of the need to provide greater access in the longer-term to the products of ASEAN (and other) countries. In the short-term, the Government does not see the possibility of making significant changes in this area in view of its concern to reduce unemployment. I believe that the ASEAN countries accept this approach. {:#subdebate-76-25} #### Film Production: Financial Assistance (Question No. 383) {: #subdebate-76-25-s0 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts, upon notice, on 23 March 1977: >Is any action for recovery to be taken, or is any action being contemplated, by the Australian Film Commission in respect of any loan that the Commission, or the disbanded Australian Film Development Corporation, has made to any organisation or person and which is overdue for settlement. {: #subdebate-76-25-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator's question: >Action is being taken by the Australian Film Commission to recover a number of loans that the former Australian Film Development Corporation made to various organisations and persons which are overdue in settlement. > >The action being taken varies according to the circumstances in each particular case and ranges from time extension being given through various schemes of arrangement for repayment to legal action. > >No loans which have been advanced by the Australian Film Commission have become overdue. State Relativities under Revenue Sharing Arrangements (Question No. 387) {: #subdebate-76-25-s2 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 March 1 977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is it the Government's intention to have a review conducted of present relativities of the States under the financial arrangements initiated in 1976-77. 1. Is it intended that the Commonwealth Grants Commission conduct such a review; if so, what are the guidelines to be adopted by the Commission when it carries out the review. {: #subdebate-76-25-s3 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 provides for a review of State relativities before 30 June 1981. The April Premiers' Conference re-affirmed the need for such a review without fixing a firm deadline for the report or its implementation. 1. The Commonwealth has taken the view that the Grants Commission is the only long-established independent body competent to undertake a review of such significance and complexity, particularly if the guidelines for the inquiry were broadly expressed. Victoria is prepared to accept the Grants Commission but the other States have pressed for a specially constituted body to conduct the review. The Prime Minister agreed to report the States ' views to Cabinet. The Premiers Conference agreed on the following guidelines for the review: {: type="i" start="i"} 0. The basic purpose is to review the percentage relationships between the States' respective per capita entitlements under Stage 1 of the personal income tax sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth and State Governments and to make any recommendations for changes in those relationships considered appropriate. 1. The review should be on the basis of the principle that each State should be able to provide State Government services of a recurrent kind of the same standard as other States without imposing higher rates of taxes or charges; differences in revenue raising capacities and in the relative costs of providing comparable government services should be taken into account. 2. The review is to include an examination of the existing relativities, of the factors which have influenced them and of any relevant changes which have occurred in the period since those relativities were established. {:#subdebate-76-26} #### Aboriginal Health Aides, Victoria (Question No. 399) {: #subdebate-76-26-s0 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 29 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many Aboriginal health aides are employed in Victoria. 1. ) Are salaries paid through the Victorian Department of Health and is the funding provided by the Commonwealth Government. 2. When were the aides first employed and to which centres are they attached. {: #subdebate-76-26-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 14. 1. Yes. 2. (a) March l976 {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Echuca, Shepparton, Swan Hill, Robinvale, La Trobe Valley, Bairnsdale, Metropolitan, Western District. {:#subdebate-76-27} #### Employment: Textile, Footwear and Clothing Industries (Question No. 409) {: #subdebate-76-27-s0 .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator Walsh: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 29 March 1977: >What percentage of employees in the textile, footwear and clothing group of industries using the most recent available figures, is located in (a) the seven capital cities, (b) Launceston, (c) Geelong, and (d) Newcastle and Wollongong. {: #subdebate-76-27-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The most recent available figures in the detail requested are preliminary data from the Census of Manufacturing Establishments for the year 1 974-75. The data refer to the average employment over the whole year for establishments predominantly engaged in the textiles or the clothing and footwear (including knitting mills) industries. > >The percentage rounded to the nearest 0.5 per cent of employees in these establishments located in the various areas requested are: {:#subdebate-76-28} #### Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (Question No. 412) {: #subdebate-76-28-s0 .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator Ryan: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 30 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many tertiary students who were at tertiary institutions in 1976 have been forced to discontinue their studies for financial reasons in 1977. 1. If no statistics are available in this area, will the Minister consider keeping such statistics in the future and making them available. 2. How many students throughout Australia are receiving maximum Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme allowances in 1976 and will the Minister provide a breakdown by State and Territory. 3. Will the Minister provide a similar breakdown for 1977. 4. How many students throughout Australia are receiving partial Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme allowances and will the Minister provide a breakdown by State and Territory. {: #subdebate-76-28-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) This information is not available to me. I see no prospect for the present of collecting such statistics in a form which would make them meaningful. 1. The following numbers of students were receiving maximum living allowance under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme at 30 June 1 976. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Comprehensive statistics of students receiving Tertiary Education Assistance are compiled in July or August each year, relating to the position at 30 June. I shall provide the honourable **Senator with** information for 1977 comparable to that given in parts (3) and (5) here as soon as possible after the figures become available. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. The following numbers of students were receiving partial living allowance under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme at 30 June 1976. {:#subdebate-76-29} #### Australian Capital Territory: Road Safety (Question No. 414) {: #subdebate-76-29-s0 .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator Ryan: asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 31 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the incidence of accidents risen in the Australian Capital Territory since the speed limit was altered from 35 mph to 80 kph on many major roads. 1. Has the seriousness of accidents increased. 2. Will the Minister provide a breakdown of accidents involving cars, motor cycles, bicycles and pedestrians. {: #subdebate-76-29-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Speed limits on many major roads have been raised from 35 mph to 80 kph. The alteration has been a progressive one and the study of accidents may not produce indicative results. Comparing accidents for the 12 month period 1973-74 and the 12 month period 1975-76 has produced the following: Accidents are influenced by many factors and the change in a speed limit would only be one of those factors. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The severity of accidents can be measured by an accident rating index. A factor is given to various categories including fatal, injured and so on. By using this index the following comparison is possible: 1. A breakdown of accidents involving cars, motorcycles, bicycles and pedestrians is: {:#subdebate-76-30} #### Processing of 1976 Census Material (Question No. 427) {: #subdebate-76-30-s0 .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Does the Minister agree with claims made in a letter to the *Age* of 27 March 1977 relating to the processing of returns of the 1976 Census signed by 17 of Australia's experienced academics and social service experts that the proposed delays in processing census materials and elimination of the topics from analysis, in whole or in pan, will (a) save a mere $2m after $7m has already been spent; (b) seriously hamper the work of the Bureau of Census and Statistics in providing materials for effective planning on economics, housing, health, education, welfare, transport and other urban services; and (c) increase the likelihood of error in the allocation of future resources in these areas. 1. Will the Government reconsider this decision. {: #subdebate-76-30-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Government has decided that processing of detailed data from the 1976 Population Census will be undertaken on a sample basis. The processing will commence as planned in July and a sample of about 50 percent of Census schedules will be used to produce information on all characteristics from the Census. The decision to adopt a sampling technique will enable the processing of schedules to be completed two or three *months earlier than would* otherwise have been the case. Any loss of accuracy resulting from the use of sampling will be small because of the size of the sample. 1. No. Radio Australia: Items on East Timor (Question No. 428) {: #subdebate-76-30-s2 .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator Button: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 30 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Since 1 January 1976 what, if any, news items or programs have been broadcast by Radio Australia in relation to the situation in East Timor. 1. Have the tapes or transcripts of such programs, if any, been retained. {: #subdebate-76-30-s3 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Radio Australia's news bulletins and public affairs programs have carried references to developments in East Timor as they have occurred. No record of the total number of such stories broadcast is immediately available. 1. Tapes of Radio Australia programs are held for six weeks after broadcast. The text of news bulletins and the transcripts of some public affairs items are retained in the ABC's archives. {:#subdebate-76-31} #### Solar Energy (Question No. 454) {: #subdebate-76-31-s0 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 20 April 1 977: >Did the Fox Inquiry state that as an average, 5-7 per cent of the Western World's energy requirements by the year 2000 A.D. could be produced by solar energy. If so, would this input from solar sources more than cover the projected annual growth rates for energy needs in the Western World. If so, how can arguments by nuclear proponents stating that only nuclear energy can cover the projected energy demand increases be vindicated. {: #subdebate-76-31-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >No. {:#subdebate-76-32} #### Northern Territory Transport System (Question No. 456) {: #subdebate-76-32-s0 .speaker-K2U} ##### Senator Robertson: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 31 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Why has a report into the Northern Territory's transpont system, carried out by the Bureau of Transport Economics last year not yet been made public. 1. Will the Report be tabled in the Parliament, if so when. {: #subdebate-76-32-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The report on the study referred to by the honourable senator has not yet been completed. 1. I will consider the matter of publication of the report after it has been presented to me. Aboriginals: Cummeragunja Co-operative Society Ltd (Question No. 459) {: #subdebate-76-32-s2 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 3 1 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Minister received a request from the Cummeragunja Co-operative Society Ltd at Barma, New South Wales, for finance for a special doctor to treat Aboriginals from Cummeragunja, Barma, Euhuca and Moama. If so, what progress has been made in considering this submission. 1. If the answer to ( I ) is in the negative, will the Minister undertake to investigate the need for such a doctor to serve these areas. {: #subdebate-76-32-s3 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) No such request has been received by my Department but I am informed that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, which has responsibility for applications of this nature has been approached and has the matter under consideration. 1. My Department will, of course, be happy to assist the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in its consideration of the request. {:#subdebate-76-33} #### Stolen Social Security and Taxation Cheques: Allegations (Question No. 468) {: #subdebate-76-33-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in the Brisbane *Sunday Mail* dated 27 March 1977, concerning a claim by the Liberal Member for Griffith, **Mr D.** M. Cameron, M.P., that groups moving from suburb to suburb by car have established a $3m a year Australia-wide racket in stolen social security and taxation cheques. If so, has an investigation been undertaken into the claims made by **Mr Cameron.** 1. If the answer to ( 1 ) is in the affirmative: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. when was the investigation completed, 1. who carried out the investigation, 2. is there evidence to suggest that a group of Aboriginals in Brisbane has formed a co-operative to steal taxation cheques from letter boxes. If so, what are the details and what action has been taken against the group concerned, 3. will the Minister provide detailed information on 4. the number of cheques reported as stolen in Brisbane since 1 July 1976, {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. the face value of the cheques, 1. the Brisbane suburbs from which cheques have been reported as stolen, 2. the number of prosecutions launched since I July 1 976 over stolen cheques, 3. the number of successful prosecutions since I July 1976, 4. the number of replacement cheques issued, 5. vii) how many of the stolen cheques referred to in (i ) were reported as stolen from letter boxes, and 6. with reference to the reply to part (iv), how many prosecutions against Aboriginals were launched, and 5. what further action does the Minister intend taking following the investigation that has been carried out. {: #subdebate-76-33-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: lt is noted that questions in similar terms were asked of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (No. 466) and the Minister for Social Security (No. 467). This answer therefore relates only to taxation cheques. Unlike cheques representing the payment of pensions or other benefits, taxation cheques are not posted to individuals at regular intervals throughout the year. The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that his records show that relatively few taxation cheques issued by the Brisbane Office have been fraudulently negotiated. Of the 62 1 000 refund cheques issued by that office since I July 1976, only 85 have been reported as fraudulently negotiatedan average of one in every 7300 cheques issued. During the year ended 30 June 1976, of the 679 000 refund cheques issued, 108 were reported as fraudulently negotiatedan average of one in every 6300 cheques issued. All cases where taxation cheques have been fraudulently negotiated are referred to the Commonwealth Police for investigation and appropriate subsequent action. {:#subdebate-76-34} #### Fraser Island: Export of Mineral Sands (Question No. 475) {: #subdebate-76-34-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 20 April 1 977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did Dillingham-Murphyores Minerals apply for an export licence in August or September 1 976, for approval to make export shipments of mineral sands from Fraser Island outside the export contracts approved with the Australian Mines and Metals Corporation. 1. What were the dates and tonnages of mineral sand from Fraser Island exported by Dillingham-Murphyores Minerals since 1 August 1976. 2. 3 ) Which of the above shipments, if any, have been made to firms other than Australian Mines and Metals Corporation. 3. Has the dispute between Dillingham-Murphyores Minerals and Australian Mines and Metals Corporation over contracts for the sale of Fraser Island mineral sand been arbitrated in San Francisco. If so, how was the dispute resolved. 4. What negotiations have taken place between the Commonwealth Government and the mining companies on Fraser Island over the proposed $5m in ex gratia payments. {: #subdebate-76-34-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Acting Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) to (3) Export contract information is provided to the Government by exporters on the basis that it will be treated as confidential between the exporter and the Government. 1. As the honourable senator was previously informed in the answer to Question No. 1SS6, requests for information on matters related to the arbitration proceedings should be addressed to the parties involved. I am informed, however, that both parties to the dispute (DM Minerals and Associated Metals and Minerals Corporation) have given evidence and are awaiting the Arbitrator's decision. 2. Claims have been lodged by Queensland Titanium Mines Pty Ltd and DM Minerals. These claims are being examined by officers of the Departments of Finance and National Resources who have also had meetings with representatives of the companies. Task Force on Co-operation in Welfare and Health (Question No. 483) {: #subdebate-76-34-s2 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What consideration has the Government given to the recommendations of the Bailey Task Force's report on the administration of health and welfare programs. 1. Does the Government intend holding consultations with the States at Ministerial and officer level on the basis of the Bailey Task Force's recommendations. If so, when will these consultations commence. {: #subdebate-76-34-s3 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) The Government's general position in relation to the Task Force recommendations and consultations with the States was outlined in my statement when tabling the report on 17 February' 1977 *(Hansard,* 17 February 1977, pages 170-172). {:#subdebate-76-35} #### Influenza Vaccine (Question No. 489) {: #subdebate-76-35-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 April 1977: >With respect to the Minister's reply to pan (2), Question No. 194 (Senate *Hansard,* 29 March 1977, page 611), regarding vaccine against influenza strains, will the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories be able to meet the demand from persons other than those in the ' at risk ' groups. {: #subdebate-76-35-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Yes. The issue of influenza vaccines has commenced in response to orders from the pharmaceutical wholesalers and indications are that current stocks of influenza vaccines are sufficient to meet the demand from persons other than those in the 'at risk 'groups. {:#subdebate-76-36} #### Department of Social Security, Sydney: Computer Centre (Question No. 491) {: #subdebate-76-36-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 977: >What action is the Minister taking to rectify the apparent inadequacy of facilities available at the computer centre of the Depanment of Social Security in Sydney outlined in the article entitled 'Social Security Workload Too High' by Frank Linton-Simpkins, which appeared in the *Australian,* dated 29 March 1977. {: #subdebate-76-36-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >I am informed that the Computer Centre of the Department of Social Security in Sydney is heavily loaded, but the work is presently being contained in the long established pattern of 2 shifts per day, 5 days per week, plus overtime > >Additional computer equipment has been on order for some time and some units have been delivered since the date of the article referred to. A third printer is due for installation in July 1977. > >The Director-General is satisfied with the computing capacity of the Sydney Centre as far as can be foreseen and in present circumstances has no plans to either further upgrade the present computer or extend normal operations into a third shift. However, the Department is developing long term plans for computer equipment to meet future needs. In the shorter term, if the workload were to increase significantly to a point where overtime working would not handle the load, immediate steps would be taken to extend to a third shift. {:#subdebate-76-37} #### National Song: Poll (Question No. 496) {: #subdebate-76-37-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 21 April 1977: >What facilities will the Government be making available so that all voters in the forthcoming poll to choose an official national anthem for Australia can hear the 4 tunes prior to 21 May. {: #subdebate-76-37-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >The poll is not for a national anthem. 'God Save the Queen' will remain the National Anthem for Royal and Vice-Regal occasions. Voters will be given the opportunity to express their preference between the tunes of 'God Save the Queen', 'Advance Australia Fair', 'Song of Australia', and Waltzing Matilda' as appropriate for playing on other occasions. The words to these tunes are not part ofthe poll. > >Arrangements have been made for television presentations in advance of the poll in order to facilitate comparison ofthe tunes concerned. {:#subdebate-76-38} #### British Airways Flight: Shutdown of Engine (Question No. 503) {: #subdebate-76-38-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 April 1977: >Has the Minister investigated the claims relating to the apparent shutdown of an engine aboard British Airways Flight 889 from Brisbane on 16 March 1977, contained in the Inside Column 'of the *Sydney Morning Herald* dated 9 April 1977. If so, what action does the Minister intend taking as a result of his investigations. {: #subdebate-76-38-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The investigation into the incident involving a British Airways Boeing 747 on 16 March 1977 was commenced that day by investigators of the Air Safety Investigation Branch of my Department. > >The investigation is not yet completed. > >Representatives of British Airways and the engine manufacturer are assisting in the technical examination of the engine. > >The operational procedures adopted by the aircraft captain are being examined. If any action is considered necessary the matter will be referred to the United Kingdom authorities. {:#subdebate-76-39} #### South Sea Islanders (Question No. 559) {: #subdebate-76-39-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977: >With respect to the Minister's reply to question No. 797 concerning South Sea Islanders (Senate *Hansard,* 1 7 August 1976), has the Inter-departmental Committee report been received. If so, (a) when was it received, and (b) what further action has the Minister taken as a result ofthe report. {: #subdebate-76-39-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >The report has not yet been received. The Committee has experienced a number of difficulties in obtaining all the information it requires and reaching appropriate conclusions. The final report is expected to be available for the consideration ofthe Government shortly. {:#subdebate-76-40} #### Death Duties (Question No. 560) {: #subdebate-76-40-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 April 1977: >Has the Queensland Premier made formal representations to the Prime Minister concerning 'a number of matters relating to death duties', as was stated by the Queensland Treasurer in reply to a question without notice in the Queensland Parliament on 29 March 1977. If so, (a) what are the details and (b) what was the Prime Minister's response. {: #subdebate-76-40-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Prime Minister has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Premier has written to me on this subject. I have said, however, in reply to other questions that details of correspondence between a Premier and Prime Minister are regarded as confidential. I do not wish to depart from that principle in this instance. {:#subdebate-76-41} #### Community Youth Support Scheme: State Committees (Question No. 566) {: #subdebate-76-41-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 20 April 1 977: >Have State Committees been established as part of the Community Youth Support Scheme. If so, (a) when were the committees set up, (b) what is the function of the committees, and (c) what is the composition of each State committee. {: #subdebate-76-41-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Yes. > >14.4.77. > >To consider and approve applications for funds under the Community Youth Support Scheme and oversight the progress of approved projects. (O {:#subdebate-76-42} #### Supporting Mothers Benefit and Deserted Wives Pension (Question No. S86) {: #subdebate-76-42-s0 .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator Ryan: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What are the current criteria used for assessing eligibility for the supporting mother's benefit and the deserted wives' pension, 1. How does the current policy of the Department of Social Security ensure that in the case of a woman who shares a house with a male with whom she does not have a de facto relationship and from whom she receives no financial support retains her eligibility to receive a pension. {: #subdebate-76-42-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The conditions of eligibility for a widow's pension (deserted wife's pension) and a supporting mother's benefit are laid down in Parts IV and IV aaa respectively of the Social Services Act. The Director-General of Social Services has the general administration of the Act and consequently he is required to satisfy himself that a claimant for widow's pension or supporting mother's benefit is eligible for the pension or benefit before a payment can be made. 1. In the circumstances you mention where a woman shares a house with a man but does not have a de factor marriage relationship with him, and she receives no financial support, her eligibility to receive a pension is not affected. {:#subdebate-76-43} #### Pharmaceutical Benefits: Rauwolfia Drugs (Question No. 590) {: #subdebate-76-43-s0 .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Baume: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 April 1977: >How many prescriptions for rauwolfia drugs have been written as pharmaceutical benefits for each of the months available since those for which information was given in reply to Senate question No. 675 of 1975. {: #subdebate-76-43-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {:#subdebate-76-44} #### Immigration: Annual Program (Question No. 592) {: #subdebate-76-44-s0 .speaker-RG4} ##### Senator Gietzelt: asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Are there immigration program targets set each year on a country by country basis, or on a regional basis. 1. For the year 1976-77 what are the projected numbers of migrants sought to be obtained from India, Great Britain and Ireland, Italy, Greece, France, Chile, Malta, Argentina, South Africa, Lebanon, Brazil, United States *of* America, New Zealand and Indonesia. 2. How many migrants have arrived to date under the abovementioned program for the countries referred to above. 3. What sums of money have been spent on migration advertising by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in the countries referred to above. {: #subdebate-76-44-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) The annual immigration program is not set on a country by country or a regional basis. For many years the Government has followed the practice of announcing a total immigration program in respect of the ensuing financial year. This provides both government and industry with information for forward planning and decision making. Present immigration policy applies in a nondiscriminatory way to applicants who satisfy the entry criteria relating to family reunion, occupations in strong and continuing demand in Australia and refugee and other special cases. Applicants must also satisfy requirements, as appropriate, relating to health, character, economic viability and ability to integrate successfully in Australia. The annual program announced is an estimate of the number of people meeting migration entry requirements who are likely to arrive in Australia in that financial year. The figure is, in present circumstances, not a target. It takes account of assessments made by Australian posts overseas of the numbers of people likely to apply, be approved and travel to Australia in the financial year. There may be substantial variations from such notional figures in a particular period. It has not been the practice to release these figures. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Arrivals for 1976-77 to the end of March 1977 from the countries mentioned in question (2) were: {: type="1" start="4"} 0. The only country in which migration advertising is being undertaken during 1976-77 is Great Britain. Expenditure to the end of March was $67,537. A further campaign presently in progress is estimated to cost $42,000. {:#subdebate-76-45} #### Diplomatic Relations with Mauritius (Question No. 603) {: #subdebate-76-45-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) When will the Government of Mauritius open a High Commission in Australia. 1. Will Australia open a High Commission in Mauritius. If so, when is it proposed that the High Commission should be opened. {: #subdebate-76-45-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) In a joint announcement the Mauritian and Australian Governments announced on 15 April 1977 that Mauritius would open a High Commission in Canberra in the near future. My latest information is that a High Commissioner for Mauritius will arrive in Canberra this month. 1. The first Australian High Commissioner to Mauritius was appointed in 1970. The High Commissioner is resident in Dar Es Salaam, but makes regular visits to Mauritius. The Australian Government has no plans at present to establish a resident mission in Mauritius. {:#subdebate-76-46} #### Tobacco Industry Research (Question No. 604) {: #subdebate-76-46-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 26 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What are the reasons for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization discontinuing tobacco industry research. 1. What are the current tobacco research projects being undertaken by the New South Wales Department of Agriculture, the Victorian Department of Agriculture and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries. 2. Have the tobacco growers' organisations or the Australian Tobacco Marketing Board requested increases in the amount being spent on tobacco industry research. If so, what are the areas in which additional research is being sought. {: #subdebate-76-46-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Following a review of research programs during 1973-74, the Chairman of CSIRO announced that CSIRO would discontinue its research work at the Tobacco Research Institute, Mareeba, at the end of the 1 974-75 financial year. While it was recognised that there was still a need for research on a number of continuing problems, especially in the fields of pest and disease control, and plant nutrition studies, as well as the need for continuing plant breeding, it was considered that such work could be more appropriately handled by State authorities. Plant breeding studies continued in Canberra until the officer concerned retired in August 1976. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Tobacco research projects currently being carried out by the Victorian and New South Wales Departments of Agriculture and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries include: New South Wales Variety evaluation Plant nutrition Nematicide evaluation Victoria Plant breeding Variety evaluation Insect pest and disease control Crop and land management, which includes studies on plant nutrition, crop rotations, weed control, low profile crop techniques, chemical sucker control, and, field maturity and related chemical leaf ripening techniques Burley tobacco culture Economics of tobacco production, especially in relation to mechanical harvesting and bulk curing techniques Queensland Plant breeding and varietal development Plant protection, including both insect pest and disease control studies Crop and land management, including studies on plant nutrition, crop rotations, weed control and general management techniques Production cost containment, which is mainly concerned with investigations of mechanical harvesting and bulk curing techniques, and the economics of crop production Because of the widely differing soil and climatic conditions between the Victorian, New South Wales and Queensland tobacco growing areas, there are marked differences in the problems which occur in the areas, as well as responses to nutritional and management techniques. For this reason it is necessary for the research centres to carry out similar studies, as results obtained in one State do not necessarily bear any relationship to those obtained in the other two. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. No requests have been received from tobacco growers' organisations or the Australian Tobacco Board for increases in the amount being spent on tobacco industry research. The tobacco growers' organisations work in very closely with the 3 State Departments responsible for tobacco research and have not voiced disagreement with the research programs which are drawn up by the States following consultation with representatives of the tobacco growing and manufacturing industry. {:#subdebate-76-47} #### Flight Facilities Pty Ltd (Question No. 611) {: #subdebate-76-47-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 21 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Department or the Minister given approval for the sale or aircraft storing and servicing facilities operated under the name of 'Flight Facilities' to any company or organisation. If so, what are the names of the companies or organisations. 1. If approval has been given, were tenders called or advertisements placed in major newspapers indicating that the premises were for sale and the lease available for transfer. 2. If tenders were not called or advertisements placed in newspapers, what were the reasons. 3. Has the Minister or the Department had discussions with, or written communications on, the subject of the sale and transfer of lease of the above property from **Mr L.** Gruzman, Q.C., or a company known as Merimbula Flying Services Pty Ltd. If so, what is the nature of the communications. 4. Has the Minister or the Department indicated either verbally or in writing to **Mr L.** Gruzman, Q.C., or Merimbula Flying Services Pty Ltd, that they will be able to purchase the facilities and obtain the lease. {: #subdebate-76-47-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The leasing arrangements with Flight Facilities Pty Ltd at Sydney Airport allow assignment of the lease without departmental or ministerial approval. The Receiver/Manager for Flight Facilities, however, sought the endorsement of the Department of Transport for as assignment of the lease to a company called Sydney Commuter Terminal Pty Ltd. The Chairman of this company is **Mr L.** C. Gruzman, Q.C. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. No. The Department of Transport is unable to say if this was done by the Receiver/Manager who would have control over this matter. 1. It is not the Department of Transport's responsibility in the case of a company in receivership. 2. The Department of Transport gave its endorsement to the application from the Receiver/Manager for Flight Facilities to assign the lease and, in association with this, correspondence and discussions have taken place between the Department and **Mr L.** C. Gruzman. Q.C. about the future use of the particular area of the airport. 3. No, but **Mr Gruzman** has been informed that if the assignment is granted by the Receiver/Manager for Flight Facilities, the Department of Transport would be prepared to negotiate the future use of this particular area of the airport, in which case, some amendments to the lease would be necessary. {:#subdebate-76-48} #### Income Equalisation Deposits Scheme: Deposits (Question No. 612) {: #subdebate-76-48-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What were the total of sums deposited under the Income Equalisation Deposits Scheme between 28 February and 31 March 1977. 1. How many depositors were in each of the following categories of deposit (a) $1 to $9,999; (b) $10,000 to $14,999; (c) $15,000 to $19,999; (d) $20,000 to $29,999; (e) $30,000 to $39,999: (f) $40,000 to $49,999: (g) $50,000 to $74,999; and (h) $75,000 and over. 2. If it is possible to establish the nature of the principle enterprise of each depositor, how many depositors were engaged principally in (a) sheep raising and wheat growing; (b) wheat and other grains; (c) wheat, sheep and cattle; (d ) beef cattle; (e) dairying; and (f) other agricultural enterprises. {: #subdebate-76-48-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The total amount deposited under the Income Equalisation Deposits Scheme during the period 1 March 1977 to 31 March 1977 was $ 1.1m including drought bond conversions amounting to $0.2m. 1. The size distribution of deposits was as follows: {: type="1" start="3"} 0. See answer to part (3) of Senate question No. 347 *(Hansard,* 2 1 April 1977, pages 945-6). {:#subdebate-76-49} #### National Rural Bank (Question No. 625) {: #subdebate-76-49-s0 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 26 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) When is the Government going to implement their 1975 election promise to quickly establish a National Rural Bank to provide specialised funds for Australian rural industries. 1. What are the reasons for the long delay in implementing this policy promise. {: #subdebate-76-49-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 hope that a concrete proposal will be ready for consideration in the context of the forthcoming Budget. 1. Establishment of improved rural credit facilities is a very complex matter. It is essential to consider in detail all relevant factors so as to ensure that what is finally agreed upon is the best arrangement possible, not only to suit existing circumstances, but also to take account of likely trends in future rural credit needs. {:#subdebate-76-50} #### Beef Industry (Question No. 641) {: #subdebate-76-50-s0 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 27 April 1977: >Does the Minister recall recent statements by the Deputy Prime Minister, **Mr Anthony,** regarding the plight of the beef industry. If so, is it likely that any withholding of beef is likely to be undertaken by the exporters and the wholesalers and, as such, is unlikely to result in a price increase for beef producers. {: #subdebate-76-50-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >It is considered unlikely that exporters and wholesalers will withhold beef. The statements by the Deputy Prime Minister related to the supply of livestock to markets around Australia. {:#subdebate-76-51} #### Real Farm Income (Question No. 642) {: #subdebate-76-51-s0 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 27 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Minister seen statements by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics on 1 1 January 1977 concerning the estimated value of real farm income in Australia. If so, did the Bureau indicate that real farm incomes are likely to drop by 8 per cent this financial year and that, at the same time, farm costs are to increase by 1 0 per cent this year. 1. How can the Minister reconcile these figures with recent speeches he has made to the annual conference of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia, and at the Clarence Pastoral and Agricultural Society's 1977 beef cattle show, where he stated that his Government's objectives were to help people in primary industry and in the productive industries back towards equality in opportunities within the domestic economy. {: #subdebate-76-51-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question-. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Yes, in January 1977 the Bureau of Agricultural Economics published estimates of farm returns, incomes and costs in 1976-77. These estimates were revised and published on 19 April 1977 in the March edition of *BAE Trends.* The estimates of 1976-77 farm returns, costs and income were revised upwards. Average farm income per farm in 1976-77 is now estimated at $ 10,432; some 1 3 per cent higher than in 1975-76. Real income per farm is expected to be slightly lower than last year. 1. ) The present estimates of farm returns reflect a number of factors including the benefits of various steps the Government has taken. Some of the more important Government initiatives include the devaluation of the $A, the raising of the floor price for wool, the improvement in the market access for beef, the underwriting of the dairy industry and the stabilisation assistance given to a range of industries. The incomes of farmers, however, are low relative to incomes elsewhere in the community. This is particularly so when it is considered that a farmer's income is not only a reward for his labour but also a return for his managerial skills and capital investment. {:#subdebate-76-52} #### Inmarsat: Maritime Communications System (Question No. 686) {: #subdebate-76-52-s0 .speaker-K1M} ##### Senator Primmer: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 April 1 977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What function, if any, will Inmarsat perform that cannot be obtained from Omega and vice versa. 1. Has any United Nations agency been consulted on the use of Inmarsat. If so, what was its reaction. 2. Is Inmarsat more accurate for surface shipping and aircraft than Omega. If so, to what degree. 3. What guarantees are there to insure that the new system will be used for peaceful purposes only. 4. Will Inmarsat be superseded by Navstar a navigation system reviewed in *Electronics* magazine of 16 October 1975. {: #subdebate-76-52-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Inmarsat will perform a communications function for maritime purposes. Omega will perform a navigation function only. 1. The International Maritime Consultative Organisation ( IMCO) has sponsored Inmarsat. 2. There is a suggestion that a navigation capability might be added to the Inmarsat system in future years. Since the navigation system component has not even been designed it is not possible to provide any comparative accuracy information. 3. Inmarsat will be used under the auspices of IMCO in precisely the same way as other international communication systems. 4. Navstar is in the concept validation stage and may or may not become a reality. It will not replace Inmarsat. {:#subdebate-76-53} #### Department of Social Security: Queensland Seminars (Question No. 696) {: #subdebate-76-53-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 28 April 1 977: >Is the Department of Social Security to hold a seminar in Mount Isa on the operations of the Depanment during May. If so, will similar seminars be held in other Queensland cities. {: #subdebate-76-53-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >As pan of a campaign to assist the public, the Depanment of Social Security has organised a series of seminars in Queensland. To date, seminars have been held in the following areas: > >Toowoomba, Kingaroy, Brisbane, Roma, Charleville, Chinchilla, Gympie. > >A similar seminar is scheduled for Mount Isa on 1 8 and 1 9 May 1977. > >Following the Mount Isa seminar, it is proposed to hold seminars at a number of locations in the Mackay and Warwick regions of the State. Department of Social Security: Facilities in Queensland Offices (Question No. 701) {: #subdebate-76-53-s2 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 28 April 1 977: >With respect to the Minister's reply to Senate question No. 13, will the Minister advise the actual location of each of the Queensland offices indicated in her reply to pans (a) and ( b) of the question. {: #subdebate-76-53-s3 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. I am advised that the following offices in Queensland have rooms especially provided for conducting confidential interviews: Alderley; Bundaberg; Cairns; Gold Coast; Gympie; Inala; Indooroopilly; Lutwyche, 138 Albert Street, Brisbane; Mackay, 232 Adelaide Street, Brisbane; Maryborough, 295 Ann Street, Brisbane; Mount Gravatt, 97 Creek Street, Brisbane; Mount Isa; Redcliffe: Sandgate; Toowoomba; Townsville; Warwick; Wynnum; West End. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. I am advised that the following offices in Queensland have rooms which can be made available, by temporary relocation of staff, for conducting confidential interviews: Ipswich; Rockhampton. Fraser Island: Ban on Sand Mining (Question No. 702) {: #subdebate-76-53-s4 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 28 April 1977: >Is the Minister aware that the former Chairman of Murphyores, **Mr Jim** Murphy, was quoted in the Melbourne *Age* on 18 April 1977 as claiming that the Minister would persuade Cabinet to reverse its decision to ban sand mining on Fraser Island. If so, (a) is the Minister attempting to have the decision reversed, and (b) does the Minister expect the decision to be reversed. {: #subdebate-76-53-s5 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >I am aware of the repOrt. The Government's decision on Fraser Island was announced by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development *(Hansard,* 10 November 1976, page 2549) and that decision is being implemented. {:#subdebate-76-54} #### Public Service Retirement (Question No. 704) {: #subdebate-76-54-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 27 April 1977: >With respect to the Minister's reply to Senate question No. 30 concerning Public Service retirement, will the Minister provide the full text of the letter issued by the Public Service Board on 14 October 1976, as was requested in Part (b) of question 30. {: #subdebate-76-54-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The full text of the letter which was issued by the Public Service Board on 14 October 1976 and which was referred to in my answer to Senate question No. 30 *(Hansard,* 20 April 1977, page 847-8) is as follows: > >ALL DEPARTMENTS: > >Acceptance of Resignations > >In September 1973 authority to accept resignations was delegated to Chief Officers in Departments. P.S.B. Circular No. 1 973/4 1 was issued in relation to that delegation. A few instances have since arisen where resignation may not have been the most appropriate course for an officer to take. For example invalidity retirement, leave without pay or transfer might have been warranted. > >A new General Order 3/D/l(d) has now been approved by the Board which provides for a department to ensure that an officer is interviewed where possible, before resigning. Subjects covered at such an interview might include the reason for resignation, whether an alternate course of action might be appropriate, and any entitlements the officer may have on leaving the Service. > >General Order 3 /D/ 1 ( d ) reads: > >Prior to ceasing duty on resignation, an officer should, wherever possible, be interviewed. Particular attention should be given by the interviewer to the officer's reasons for resignation because in some instances it may not be appropriate. For example: an officer may be entitled to transfer to the Appendix or Unattached List because of the nature of future employment there may be medical grounds that suggest invalidity retirement may be warranted transfer to another department might be considered the grant of Leave Without Pay may be appropriate a female officer on marriage may have an entitlement under section 54C (see G.0. 3/E/2 ). > >Replacement pages for General Orders will be issued in due course. {:#subdebate-76-55} #### Education: Federal Financial Assistance (Question No. 736) {: #subdebate-76-55-s0 .speaker-K1M} ##### Senator Primmer: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 27 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How much Federal funds were spent on disadvantaged schools and innovation grants in the years 1972-73 to 1977 in the Shires of Kowree, Arapiles, Wimmera, Stawell, Ararat, Mortlake, Warrnambool, Minhamite, Portland, Glenelg, Wannon, Dundas, Mount Rouse and Belfast, the Town of Portland, the Boroughs of Port Fairy and Koroit, and the Cities of Hamilton, Warrnambool, Horsham and Ararat. 1. How much Federal funds were spent on child-care and kindergartens in the years 1972-73 to 1976-77 in each of the above Local Government areas. 2. What moneys were spent on the National Employment and Training Scheme and the National Apprenticeship Assistance Scheme over the years 1972-73 to 1976-77 in the areas listed. {: #subdebate-76-55-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. My Department does not maintain expenditure records by shires, boroughs, towns or cities. Reports detailing financial assistance granted to each state for 1974 and 1975have been prepared by the Schools Commission. The honourable senator may be able to obtain the information he desires from these documents. Payments for 1974 are set out in the document *Report: Financial assistance granted to each State in 1974 (under the) States Grants (Schools) Act 1973-74* which was tabled in the Senate on 1 October 197S. Payments for 197S are set out in the document *Report: Financial assistance granted to each state in 1975 ( under the) States Grants (Schools) Act 1973* which was tabled in the Senate on 30 November 1976. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. My Department is not responsible for the administration of child care grants and kindergartens in the areas mentioned. It is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Social Security. 1. My Department is not responsible for the administration of the National Employment and Training Scheme or the National Apprenticeship Assistance Scheme. It is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. {:#subdebate-76-56} #### Karratha and Albury Airports: Fire Fighting Service (Question No. 738) {: #subdebate-76-56-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is the Minister aware that 2 airports, Karratha and Albury, both exceed the International Civil Aviation Organisation's requirement for the provision of fire services at airports, and yet have no fire services. 1. When will such services be provided. {: #subdebate-76-56-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) International Civil Aviation Organisation standards for rescue and fire fighting services apply to international operations and were developed in the context of the major airports at which such international operations normally occur. The ICAO standard developed in this context is that such a service should be established at all airports. Karratha and Albury are not international airports and the ICAO standard does not place any requirement on Australia to provide services there. A review within my Department of how limited resources for his purposes can best be spread amongst domestic airports is expected to be completed in the next few months. It will have regard to the levels of risk involved and priorities for use of financial resources. It may result in some changes in the location and extend of rescue and fire fighting services at country airports. In 1975-76 the direct operating costs of Rescue and Fire Fighting services at Australian airports was $7.6m. Services were provided at 32 airports and thereby covered 93 per cent of passengers carried on domestic scheduled services as well as hundreds of thousands of people flying in non-scheduled operations. To establish complete cover of airline services would require units to be located at 190 additional airports and would add something of the order of $20m to the annual direct cost of these services, without saying anything about the capital investment involved. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Until the review is complete I am unable to answer part (2) of the question. Should either Karratha or Albury qualify, a subsequent time lapse would occur in providing the facilities, vehicles, and trained manpower to establish a unit. {:#subdebate-76-57} #### Department of Transport: Fire Tenders (Question No. 739) {: #subdebate-76-57-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 April 1977: >Will the Department of Transport be purchasing new ultra-large fire tenders to replace the old and worn out equipment that it now has. If so, when are the orders to be placed and will it be Australian or overseas equipment. {: #subdebate-76-57-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: >The Department of Transport will be purchasing new ultra large fire tenders shortly. Orders will be placed upon evaluation of tenders. The source of supply will not be known until tender evaluation is completed. {:#subdebate-76-58} #### Airport Fire Fighting Equipment (Question No. 740) {: #subdebate-76-58-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 April 1977: >As money was made available in 1973 by the previous Government for the provision of new and modern fire fighting equipment for airport fire services throughout Australia, when is it anticipated that it will be supplied. If not, why not. {: #subdebate-76-58-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >It is the Government's intention to provide new and modern fire fighting equipment for airport fire services. Tenders for ultra large fire tenders will be evaluated and orders placed within the next few months. {:#subdebate-76-59} #### Airport Fire Fighting Standards (Question No. 743) {: #subdebate-76-59-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 April 1977: >Will the Minister assure the Senate that no action will be taken by the Depanment of Transport to lower rescue firefighting standards at airports. {: #subdebate-76-59-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >I can assure the honourable senator that I will support the retention of an adequate standard of lire-fighting capacity at airports where a rescue and fire-fighting service is established. In deriving the standard to be sought, regard will be given to the guidelines of the International Civil Aviation Organisation on this subject as well as to the advice of Australian experts in this area. {:#subdebate-76-60} #### Republic of Ireland: Portlaoise Prison (Question No. 745) {: #subdebate-76-60-s0 .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator Button: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Minister been informed of complaints about the conditions of 20 Republican prisoners in the Portlaoise Prison in the Republic of Ireland. If so, are the complaints of poor treatment correct or otherwise? 1. Has any representation been made to the Government of Ireland regarding this matter? {: #subdebate-76-60-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Minister for Foreign Affairs has received a report from the Australian Embassy in Dublin regarding events in Portlaoise Prison. Eighteen IRA prisoners at the Curragh Military Hospital recently staged a hunger strike to support demands for improved conditions in Portlaoise Prison. Demonstrations also took place in Dublin and Portlaoise in support of these demands. The principal complaint related to the strip-searching of prisoners and of visitors by the Portlaoise prison authorities in order to prevent the concealment of explosives, as had occurred in the past. The Minister for Justice of the Republic of Ireland, **Mr Cooney,** has rejected calls for an independent inquiry on the matter, denying that conditions in the gaol were as the critics described them and saying that there was nothing to inquire into. 1. No representation has been made to the government of the Republic of Ireland on this matter. It is one which falls entirely within the jurisidiction of that Government. {:#subdebate-76-61} #### Army Recruiting: Television Advertising (Question No. 747) {: #subdebate-76-61-s0 .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator Ryan: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 3 May 1977: >Did the Minister approve an advertisement currently being shown on commercial television aimed at seducing young men to join the Australian Army, which suggests a number of totally unrealistic aspects of army life, in particular a most blatant and offensive piece of visual sexism, suggesting that the army provides its soldiers with the use of beautiful young women. {: #subdebate-76-61-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The advertisement was approved by the Director-General of Recruiting, who is the Defence Depanment officer responsible for Defence Force recruiting promotional material. The detail of the advertisement was agreed by the Director of Army Recruiting, and the concept of presentation was based on professional technical advice provided by the Australian Government Advertising Service of the Depanment of Administrative Services. > >The television commercial is pan of an overall press and television recruiting advertising activity which has been in progress since November 1 975. The theme of both segments of the activity is to offer young people an alternative option for employment which, while being completely different in daily job satisfaction, still retains a reasonably normal social existence in life style. The military action scenes are completely realistic for the majority of serving soldiers. The off duty activities shown are indicative of normal civilian activities still available to those in the Defence Force, the majority of whom are under 30 years of age. {:#subdebate-76-62} #### Education: Arguments Supporting Government's Performance (Question No. 763) {: #subdebate-76-62-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 4 May 1 977: >Is the Minister aware of a brief which was provided to members and/or senators which outlined arguments to be used to defend the Government's performance on education, if so, (a) at whose instigation was the document prepared, (b) when was it prepared and by whom, (c) to whom was it sent, and (d) what was the full text of the document. {: #subdebate-76-62-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >The document was prepared by myself on 22 March 1977. It was dispatched to all government members and senators by my staff. Unemployment: Survey by Bureau of Statistics (Question No. 800) {: #subdebate-76-62-s2 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice: >Is it a fact that the Australian Bureau of Statistics, on behalf of the Queensland Government, recently conducted a survey of persons registered for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service. If so, > >to what use will this survey be put by the Queensland Government, and > >b ) on whose authority was the survey conducted. {: #subdebate-76-62-s3 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >A survey of persons registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service as unemployed was carried out by the Austraiian Bureau of Statistics in March 1977 at the request of the Australian Government. The survey was undertaken in all 6 Metropolitan Statistical Divisions and was not conducted on behalf of the Queensland Government. > >Preliminary results of the survey were contained in an official publication by the Australian Statistician (Ref No. 6.63) issued on IS April 1977. As stated in that publication the survey was designed to assess how many registrants in Metropolitan Statistical Divisions would have been classified as unemployed according to the definitions used in the labour force surveys carried out by the Bureau. {:#subdebate-76-63} #### Concessionaire: James Richardson Pty Ltd (Question No. 837) {: #subdebate-76-63-s0 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 May 1 977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Department of Transport decided to renew the concession of James Richardson and Company for the continued operation of the international duty free store at Mascot International Airport. 1. Was James Richardson and Company's tender the highest tender received for the concession. If not, by how much did it fall short ofthe highest tender. 2. Which company in fact submitted the highest tender, and what considerations other than tender price are taken into account in awarding contracts of this nature. {: #subdebate-76-63-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) No. The authority held by James Richardson Pty Ltd for the operation of the duty free shop in the international terminal at Sydney Airport expires in June 1 977. 1. and (3) Public tenders for the operation of the facility for a further 3 year term are currently under consideration and during this examination details of individual tenders must necessarily remain confidential. Assessment of tenders is undertaken on the basis of the highest satisfactory offer. Australian Art: *Environmental Sculpture* {: #subdebate-76-63-s2 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -On 22 March 1977 *(Hansard* page 334) **Senator Messner** asked me the following question, without notice: >Is the Minister aware of the recent completion of the work, Environmental Sculpture', of West German sculptor Herbert Hajek at the Festival Theatre in Adelaide and the widespread dismay amongst South Australian artists who claim that Australians should have been consulted before a South Australian Government commission was offered to a foreign artist? Can the Minister assure the Senate that the Australian artistic community will be consulted in the event of Federal Government artistic commissions? The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The 'Environmental Sculpture' was commissioned and funded by the Adelaide Festival Centre Trust and the Commonwealth Government was not involved. The Australia Council, the Government's advisor on the arts, has a responsibility to foster the arts in Australia and the work of Australian artists, and it is normal practice for its Visual Arts Board to recommend Australian artists when advice is sought on the commissioning of works of art for Commonwealth purposes. Shipbuilding Industry, Whyalla {: #subdebate-76-63-s3 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -On 29 March 1977 **Senator Davidson** asked me the following question without notice: >Would the Minister ascertain whether the South Australian Premier's representations to the Commonwealth Government on the situation in Whyalla regarding shipbuilding have been acknowledged. The following is an answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Premier and the Acting Premier of South Australia exchanged correspondence with the Commonwealth Government in December 1976 on shipbuilding at Whyalla. The South Australian Government was advised that as soon as the Commonwealth Government was in a position to make a decision on their proposals, the Prime Minister would again contact the Premier. Capital Works: Funding {: #subdebate-76-63-s4 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- On 29 March *(Hansard* page 553) **Senator Wriedt** asked me, as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, a question, without notice, concerning the funding of capital works in the States. The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator's question: >All programs assisted by way of specific purpose payments are under review in the context of the Commonwealth 's Federalism policies with a view to efficient and responsible administration. There has been no decision to transfer any specific purpose payments for capital works into the Loan Council programs ofthe States. The question of interest rates would be a matter for consideration if and when such a transfer were proposed. Lubricating Oils: Reprocessing {: #subdebate-76-63-s5 .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: asked the following question, without notice, on 3 1 March 1977: >Is the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources or, alternatively, the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development aware that, as reported in the *Herald* of 2 1 March 1977, Australia recycles only a small fraction of used automotive and other lubricating oils and that most of the used oil is either dumped or burned, often with adverse environmental effects? Is it a fact that many countries overseas are now introducing legislation to enforce re-refining of these lubricating oils, which results in a substantial saving of oil and significant avoidance of pollution? In view of Australia's dependence upon imports of heavy lubricating oils, are any plans envisaged to encourage effective oil recycling? {: #subdebate-76-63-s6 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Acting Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Government is conscious of the arguments in favour of reprocessing of lubricating oil and some reprocessing does take place. > >However, complex issues are involved. On the one hand there are environmental and conservation aspects, and on the other important questions involving financial consideration for the industry. Also, in many respects, the issues involved fall within the jurisdiction of the States. > >In some European countries action has been initiated to encourage the collection and re-refining of waste lubricating oil. > >The Department of National Resources follows developments in regard to recycling very closely and the whole question is currently being reviewed.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 24 May 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1977/19770524_senate_30_s73/>.