Senate
13 October 1977

30th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1351

PETITION

Public Libraries

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– On behalf of Senator Ryan I present the following petition from 1,219 citizens of Australia:

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

That the public library services of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, and the Northern Territory are inadequate both in quality and quantity and that the burden of provision is placed too heavily upon local government.

That the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries recommended a programme of assistance for public libraries of approximately $20m a year (at June 1975 prices) over a period of ten years, and the establishment at a national level of a Public Libraries and Information Council to formulate, to implement and evaluate assistance programs.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: as a matter of urgency implement the recommendations of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

page 1351

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1351

QUESTION

FEDERALISM FORMULA

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I direct a question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. Is it a fact that stage one of the federalism formula, as set out in the current Budget Papers, was abandoned at the July Premiers’ Conference due to the fact that the old formula yielded insufficient revenue for the States? Has it now been suggested that the formula be varied so that the States will receive 39.87 per cent of the previous year’s personal income tax collections? Does the Minister expect that this formula will yield a satisfactory result for the States?

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

– When stage one of fiscal federalism was introduced, the Commonwealth drew the attention of the States to the fact that a more stable way of applying a formula of percentage to income tax collection would be to the take the previous year as a guide rather than the current year. The position for the previous year would be known precisely whereas the position for the current year would be one of speculation and variation including, of course, the hazards of the volume of money that might be harvested in that year by the Commissioner of Taxation. Nevertheless, the States elected to try the current year. The result was- as experience showedthat there was a hazard in the actual predictability of the position. In the event the harvesting of tax was less than the Commissioner of Taxation or the Treasury had indicated, and in that regard the result for the year was not as satisfactory as it might have been. Accordingly, at the July Premiers Conference the Commonwealth reiterated its offer that the States should work on the previous year’s yield. If we applied this year’s yield of $4,336m to the previous year’s income tax collections, as Senator Wriedt has said the figure would be 39.87 per cent, and that figure would then be applied in subsequent times to the previous year’s income tax collections.

The States have considered this matter. My understanding is that they are agreed on its acceptability. I do not know whether it has been finalised. I should imagine that it will be finalised at the Premiers Conference on 2 1 October. The fact is that by this means the States are guaranteed this year the precise amount of $4,336m, which is an increase of $600m or 17 per cent over the previous year. Therefore there is an increase in real money growth. I believe, as the Commonwealth believed previously, that this is an improvement in the scheme and one which will consolidate the scheme.

page 1351

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN UNION OF STUDENTS

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Are motions being put to the annual council meeting of the Australian Union of Students to increase the annual fee towards $10, which fee is to be hidden in the enrolment fee and inapparent to students? Will the Government permit a compulsory levy of this kind on tertiary students to be used to pay the debts of the bankrupt and discredited AUS Travel Service? Can the Government carefully monitor the use of compulsory levies on students to ensure that they are not diverted into any improper or inappropriate uses?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-As to the first part of Senator Baume ‘s question, I have not seen the suggestion, but I will be grateful if he will bring it to my attention because I would like to give it consideration. I am not aware of it as such. The whole question of compulsory levies- whether it is a compulsory levy paid to the AUS or a compulsory levy in respect of any other matter which might offend conscience and create objections in that regard-has concerned the Government.

Senator Georges:

– It is an objection if they do not want to pay it.

Senator CARRICK:

-Senator Georges would not understand the question of conscience. He does not understand the niceties of these things, and therefore the nuances of this, which are vital to ordinary human susceptibility, would have passed him by. Again the brain fever bird is being active today. Having said that, let me simply say that the whole question of compulsory levies has been raised in a series of discussions with the vice-chancellors of the universities and the principals of the colleges of advanced education. Each of the institutions is looking to its rules, ordinances and regulations to ascertain what relief can be given in this regard. The Government itself believes that there ought to be opportunities for students to exercise conscience where they find that compulsion is objectionable to their conscience. This is a very valuable right.

Senator Georges:

– What an extraordinary point of view. Would you pay compulsory third party motor insurance?

Senator CARRICK:

– The interjections are so helpful. Indeed, one wonders whether one could turn up the decibels at times, because without any help from me the interjections really add to the need for an explanation of why this Government should ensure that conscience is enshrined. Clearly this kind of principle is unknown to the Opposition, but it is known to the Government. We are having continuous dialogue on this matter and we hope that we can bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.

page 1352

QUESTION

INFLATION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has his attention been drawn to a statement made by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives yesterday that the rate of annual inflation as measured by the consumer price index is not 13.4 per cent? Is the Minister aware that according to the statistical research section of the Parliamentary Library inflation, as measured by aggregating quarterly changes in the consumer price index, was 13.9 per cent in September 1976 and is estimated to be 14.6 per cent in September 1977, based on Mr Justice Ludeke ‘s use of the consumer price index in his report on medical fees for medical benefit purposes? I seek leave to have a short table incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The table read as follows-

  1. June Quarter index number increased by 3.2S per cent
Senator COTTON:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-No, of course. I am not aware of any of those things nor do I agree that they are necessarily correct. I suggest that we examine the question and the incorporation, which seems to make it a statement and not a question. I will analyse the question to see how much truth or falsity is contained in it.

page 1352

QUESTION

LIVESTOCK DISEASES

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. No doubt the Minister is aware of the great loss of livestock which results from cancerous tumors of the eye and that the present treatment of this condition is extremely difficult and expensive. I draw the Minister’s attention to the new technique which has been developed in the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in New Mexico which involves the use of a hand held electronic device that heats the tumor with a high frequency electronic current, destroying the cancer cells. The device is powered by a 12 volt battery and is easily handled by a farmer without veterinary experience. I ask: If it is not already being done, will the Minister investigate this new procedure to assist our cattlemen and bring some relief to this industry?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I am indebted to the honourable senator for this information which I shall pass on to the Minister for Primary Industry. I and I think most honourable senators are aware that problems exist in Australia with cancer of the eye in certain breeds of cattle. I shall not delineate those because it will only start a nasty inter-breed row. It does happen and it is one of the problems facing the industry. If the device developed at Los Alamos will overcome that problem simply, effectively and cheaply it could be a distinct boon. I am grateful for the information. I am sure the Minister, if he is not already aware of this information, will be pleased to receive it. We shall take it further.

page 1353

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: ELIGIBILITY

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security and it follows statements made by her last night and Mr Street this morning. To remove the present confusion will the Minister or the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations issue instructions through the heads of their departments to their officers concerning the eligibility to unemployment benefit of workers stood down in the present industrial dispute in Victoria? If so, will those instructions differ from the present instructions? Will the Minister table the instructions in Parliament? When will the Parliament be made aware of any legislative changes to the Social Services Act affecting such payments?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– I announced last night with regard to the payment of unemployment benefit to Victorians and others affected by the strikes presently taking place in that State that the existing policy will be used in relation to the payment of unemployment benefit. This will be applied pending any changes that may be made to the legislation in future. As far as any confusion is concerned, there is no confusion in my Department. I understand that the Commonwealth Employment Service equally has no confusion because there has been no change in the policy which has applied since 1973. This is a policy which says that members of striking unions at the establishment at which the industrial dispute is in force are not eligible for unemployment benefit under section 107 of the Social Services Act. Members of other unions at that establishment who are stood down as a result of the dispute will, however, be paid unemployment benefit, subject to the usual conditions. Persons who are stood down at other establishments as a result of the dispute will be granted unemployment benefit subject to the usual conditions, irrespective of their union membership. My Department is processing applications where eligibility does exist under the existing policies. There should be no confusion or delay in payment to those who are entitled to unemployment benefit. If it decides to make any changes to the legislation, the Government will announce that fact in due course. Matters have been under consideration with regard to unemployment benefit in the present dispute. No further statements will be made at this stage on any changes that may be decided upon by the Government. The Department in Victoria is expediting to the maximum extent, the payment of unemployment benefit to avoid any hardship that may occur to the thousands of families who are left without income because of the strikes which have taken place in the Latrobe Valley and which have flowed on very widely in Victoria.

page 1353

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT RECIPIENTS: PART TIME WORK

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to a news report yesterday that a significant number of unemployed main breadwinners had part time jobs. Are persons in part time work eligible for the receipt of unemployment benefit? If not, has the Minister’s Department evidence of such ineligible persons receiving unemployment benefit?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– To become eligible for unemployment benefit persons must pass the work test which is arranged through the Commonwealth Employment Service. To pass the work test a person must be available for employment. The level of unemployment benefit paid is affected by the income that is received by any person from any other source. That matter is determined by my Department. I have no direct knowledge as to the numbers of people who it is claimed have part time work. I am assured that the Commonwealth Employment Service when conducting the work test requires that people are available for full time employment.

page 1353

QUESTION

URANIUM POLICY

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources by quoting the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency who, at a conference in Vienna on 28 September, said:

Let us remember that in the long run there is no way of stopping the spread of nuclear technology among nations and we must face the proliferation problems that result.

How does the Government reconcile that statement from an authority such as the chief of the IAEA with the uranium statement made by this Government in August? Part of that statement reads:

The export of Australian uranium will decrease the risks of further proliferation of nuclear weapons … it will help make a safer world.

Will the Government in the light of the information that is now to hand reconsider its uranium decision?

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

-I am delighted that the honourable senator has read that statement. What it is saying, in effect, whether the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions like it or not, is that we are in the nuclear age. If the Australian Labor Party and the ACTU think they can quarantine Australia from a world wide situation, they are living in a dream world. The Government recognises that we live in the nuclear age. The Government recognises that a large number of countries overseas are building nuclear power stations. Amongst those countries are the areas generally known as Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Also a number of nations generate a large proportion of their electricity from nuclear power stations. The last figure I saw was that in the United Kingdom approximately, I think, 30 per cent of electricity now comes from nuclear power stations.

Senator Walsh:

– How much?

Senator WITHERS:

-About 30 per cent. I think that is the figure I was given the other night. I thought it was extraordinarily high. I was assured by my informant that that was about the correct figure.

Senator Wriedt:

– About 9 per cent.

Senator WITHERS:

-No. It was 30 per cent. That is what I was told. I was surprised at the size of the figure. It is well known that a large number of European countries wish to turn to nuclear power stations so as not to be so totally dependent on oil from the Middle East. Whether or not Australia mines and exports uranium, there is no doubt that a large number of countries will go into the nuclear age and build nuclear power stations. Australia has to make up its mind whether in its position between the Indian and Pacific Oceans it ignores the rest of the world or gets into the game and has some influence. I thought that the whole stance of the Government was to become involved in this matter so that we can exercise a proper restraint to stop the recycling of nuclear fuel, which does lead to problems in all sorts of areas, and bring an influence of moderation and sense into the international sphere. I should have thought that the members of the Australian Labor Party, who have always proclaimed themselves as great internationalists, would have wanted Australia to play its part and have a meaningful role in this very vital matter which affects the whole world.

Senator Missen:

– You are too generous.

Senator WITHERS:

-I should have thought that they would have seen that as an obligation to mankind throughout the world. For years the Australian Labor Party has promoted itself as the champion of the underdog and the under privileged; yet it is prepared to see the people overseas freeze and starve in the dark. That is its whole attitude.

Senator Melzer:

– What rubbish!

Senator WITHERS:

-Honourable senators opposite do not like my saying that because it hurts. We believe that, being an energy rich nation, we have an obligation to share those energy riches with the less privileged throughout the world. I should have thought that that would have been something that had the support of the Opposition. I am delighted that the honourable senator is now starting to read something by experts about the nuclear age instead of relying on the statements of her flat earth friends.

page 1354

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Is the Government aware of the effect on Datsun motor dealers of the Industries Assistance Commission’s recommendation about the cutting of Datsun ‘s quota of fully imported passenger vehicles by 30 per cent? Is the Government aware that, following the Government’s agreement that Nissan manufacture in Australia, Datsun dealers were required to and did expand their investment and facilities for the sale and service of Datsun vehicles and that fully imported passenger cars in a volume at least equal to that previously enjoyed are essential to enable them to service their investment, to remain viable and to support Nissan by taking and selling increasing numbers of the less profitable locally manufactured vehicles? Is the Government prepared to accept representations from those experiencing difficulties as a result of this recommendation, which would penalise Nissan, which is investing many millions of dollars in this country, and would favour companies which have chosen to adhere solely to the import of built-up passenger cars with no contribution to the employment of Australians in the manufacturing segment of our industry?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-The determination of the import levels for the motor vehicle industry was the product of an IAC examinaton of the whole matter, which was then put before the Government. The Government made a determination on the IAC report, deciding that it would be better to make judgments on registrations rather than import clearances because it seemed to the Government that the latter basis would allow people to accumulate stock ahead of a situation and perhaps to be in a better position than those who had a normal share of the market. One is trying to establish what is the normal share of the market that people have on the basis of registration. That is what was done in that case. There is naturally a problem between the people who manufacture in Australia and who also want to import motor cars and those whose business it is to import motor cars. There is a further problem in the Australian community in that people wish to have access to some imported motor vehicles and equally wish to have a solid, expanding industry employing people in Australia. The balancing of all those things is not an easy exercise, but one does one’s best. When the decisions are made it is inevitable that there will be some people who are dissatisfied. I always endeavour to see those who are dissatisfied. I shall do so on this occasion. I have found that those who are satisfied never come near me.

page 1355

QUESTION

FILMS

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Is it a fact that Australia annually spends more than $100m in purchasing United States films for the domestic market? Is the Minister aware that American film distributors have refused to reciprocate in the purchase of Australian film productions? Having regard to the excellent quality of Australian films- I refer in particular to films like Caddie- has the Government made any attempt to persuade the American film distributors to buy our films, as is happening in the United Kingdom?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-This matter comes within the area of industry and commerce. Naturally one wishes to see a healthy industry generated in Australia. Overseas markets are needed for the products in this field, just as they are needed in most other areas. It also comes within the area of overseas trade, which is a matter for which I have some responsibility. If one looks at this position, one is always encountering these bilateral out of balance trade situations. Australia and Japan are bilaterally totally out of balance, and so are Australia and the United States of America, and Japan and the United States of America. But if one looks at the group of nations together, taking the three nations and not just two nations, one gets a reasonable state of balance. Honourable senators would have expected me to argue, and I do argue, for a greater access to the American market for any Australian product- films, cattle, lead, zinc, wool or anything else one likes to name. The Americans have a distinct advantage over us in terms of what we buy from them and what they are able to buy from us. This is equally true of Europe. We are active in this area all the time. I will certainly take up the matter that has been raised. It has been taken up before, but I will take it up again. This is a fact of the trading world. Of course much rubbish is flung at us because we are out of balance with some other countries, so naturally we respond by saying that there are countries with a big advantage over us.

page 1355

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES TEACHERS

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Minister for Education aware of a report that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday headed New South Wales Teachers Demand Jobs for All1? Is it a fact that New South Wales trainee teachers met at the weekend and demanded that all available qualified teachers in New South Wales should be employed? Is it also a fact that a unanimous resolution highly critical of the New South Wales Minister for Education was carried at that meeting? Can the Minister tell the Senate whether the New South Wales Government has done anything in its new Budget to overcome the great difficulties it has created for teachers in that State and whether it will be able to meet its election promise to employ all trained teachers?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Lajovic has asked me a question in four parts. In fact, I did see a number of newspaper reports indicating that teacher bodies had met and had expressed very great concern at decisions of the Wran Government regarding teacher employment. I am aware that an essential plank of the Wran Labor Party’s election policy was that it would employ all unemployed teachers. I am equally aware that it has now indicated that it proposes to offer jobs to some 1,250 teachers out of some 3,000 unemployed teachers offering. That, of course, must have caused very considerable concern to those in the teaching profession. Of course, I am also aware that the Wran Government, within its capacity to do so, has decided to cut the intake of teacher trainees by 20 per cent. That may well be its indication of how it sees future supply and demand for teachers. There is a very considerable feeling of concern that a government which could bring down a capital works program showing an overall increase of 1 8 per cent in expenditure on capital works should find it possible to provide only an increase of some 8 per cent in expenditure on education, therefore really indicating that it was bringing down a negative works program, since inflation must be running at about nine per cent to ten per cent. I think there is a growing degree of disaffection within the teaching and parent communities regarding the Wran Government’s approach to education. I understand also that there is a feeling within the non-government schools that it is not in fact measuring up to its promise to maintain strictly a 20 per cent per capita grant. In general terms I do not know the precise resolutions passed at the meeting, but I understand that what Senator Lajovic has said is correct.

page 1356

QUESTION

EDUCATION: CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. In view of the answer he has just given, in which he referred to the apparent reluctance of the New South Wales Government to engage in further capital works programs for education, I ask him: Is it not a fact that the Fraser Government has reduced capital payments to New South Wales by a figure of $90m in the last two years, as shown in the Budget Papers?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Wriedt repeatedly makes the error, which he has compounded today, of failing to take together all the revenue and capital grants. He must realise that to understand the volume of money available to any State for either revenue or capital purposes one must look at both grants. It is quite competent for the States to do what the Commonwealth does at all times, that is, direct its revenue or portion of its revenue to capital if it so desires. Taking that fact in isolation, Senator Wriedt reaches a wrong conclusion. What he should understand is that this year, under the taxation reimbursement grants of fiscal federalism, the States have an increase of 17 per cent in their revenue funds and are therefore quite competent, with the real money growth within those funds, to direct them towards capital if they wish. If they fail to do so that is their own judgment and they must take the judgment of the people on it. Above everything else, the proof that there are abundant capital funds available in New South Wales is demonstrated by the capital budget of the Wran Government, which showed an 18 per cent increase and therefore showed the availability of money for capital. It also showed that the Wran Government holds education in such low regard that it has given it an 8 per cent increase.

page 1356

QUESTION

CITIZEN BAND RADIO

Senator MISSEN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer to the recent report in a document known as CB News, reported in the Australian of 3 October 1977, which claimed that a state of anarchy exists on the air waves and that licensed CB radio users are paying $25 for a licence and receiving nothing m return. Will the Minister inform the Senate whether those licence fees are being applied to some useful purpose and what law enforcement on unruly radio operators is being carried out? Is the issue of a licence accompanied by a set of guidelines and regulations which govern the use of these radio sets?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The substance of the aritcle referred to by Senator Missen is known to me. In fact I have had several questions directed to me informally on the matter and therefore I have a brief. My brief indicates that the article to which Senator Missen referred contains some journalistic licence in its compilation. Honourable senators will be aware that the introduction of the citizens band radio service was accompanied by union bans on the issue of licences and on the investigation of interference. Those bans have now been suspended and it is expected that within a few weeks normal attention will be given to the problems that have arisen. The licence fees are part of the revenue obtained from all licences issued under wireless telegraphy regulations. The cost of administering the radio frequency spectrum is covered notionally by this revenue. In accepting the proposal that there should be an interim high frequency citizen band service, the Government was aware that that type of technology could result in interference to radio and television receivers. Unfortunately, in any service of that type there always seems to be a minority which is reluctant to abide by the regulations or which will, by offensive behaviour or poor operating practice, make it difficult for other users. It costs money to investigate such complaints and highly trained technical staff have to be employed. It is fair to expect users to contribute to those additional costs. Guidelines are set out in a departmental brochure which, for Senator Missen ‘s guidance, is designated as RBI 4. Although the guidelines were acknowledged by the writer of the article, he claimed that they are written in technical language which few CB-ers would understand. The position is that before a licence is issued all applicants must certify in writing that they have read and will abide by the RBI 4 guidelines. I am advised that the Post and Telecommunications departmental staff will now be available to investigate interference and to enforce regulations. An urgent review is currently under way of the staffing of the branch responsible for these matters. The Government will consider that report in the light of the new work load caused by the introduction of citizen band radio.

page 1357

QUESTION

PROPOSED NATIONAL RURAL BANK

Senator WALSH:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in his capacity as Minister representing the Treasurer and Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Minister seen yesterday’s Press report which stated that the proposed national rural bank will be a trading bank re-financing consortium? Can the Minister reconcile this with the Prime Minister’s 11 September electorate talk in which he said that the Government would set up a national rural bank which ‘will be a statutory body established by legislation which will be introduced this session’? I ask the Minister Are the Press reports inaccurate or has the Prime Minister changed his mind since 1 1 September? If so, can the Minister indicate why this change of Government policy has occurred?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I have not seen the Press reports. Therefore I cannot vouch for their accuracy or inaccuracy. But I suggest that you cannot run a country by reading the newspapers three times a day. It does not work like that. The Government made a promise that it would establish a national rural bank. It will do so. Why does the honourable senator not relax until the thing comes in?

Senator WALSH:

- Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister whether the statement by the Prime Minister on 1 1 September that the national rural bank ‘will be a statutory body established by legislation which will be introduced this session’ still represents Government policy.

Senator COTTON:

-Of course it does. Might I observe in this place that we have a body of people on both sides of the chamber who were Ministers at one time or other. We answer questions and supplementary questions which seem to be proliferating day by day, for ourselves and for a number of other departments. I ask the honourable senator to compare that with the position in the House of Commons where a Minister gets a question once a week, and then it is on notice. Let him think about that.

page 1357

QUESTION

HEN QUOTAS

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Reports of a Canberra court case which revealed that an Australian Capital Territory poultry farmer with a quota for 85,584 hens in fact, on inspection, had 118,421 hens or 38 per cent above his quota, must clearly indicate the advantages of having industry levies in respect of hens and not, as in many States, on eggs where authenticity is virtually impossible to establish. Will the Minister draw the attention of the Minister he represents to the case to take the matter up with the Australian Agricultural Council to have those States not on the hen levy system changed to it forthwith to retain the advantages of industry regulation so far achieved?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– If the reports are correct, they will certainly be referred to the Minister. The honourable senator will understand that on a number of things, including the chook business, I am not an expert.

page 1357

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT: COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE BULLETINS

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations whether it is a fact that the monthly Commonwealth Employment Service bulletins on the numbers of people registered as unemployed are to be discontinued and to be replaced with surveys done by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. If this is the case, will the Minister tell the Senate what the cost of this transfer of responsiblity is to be and explain the reason why the Minister has decided on this course of action?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I shall refer that question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in an effort to obtain an early answer.

page 1357

QUESTION

MINING EXPLORATION COSTS

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of the very great concern among relatively smaller mining and exploration companies regarding the enormous taxation disadvantage they suffer in relation to larger mining organisations in that exploration expenditure may be allowed as a taxation deduction only from established mining incomes, will the Minister reconsider present Government policy and allow mining exploration costs as legitimate expenses when incurred by smaller prospecting companies which do not, as yet, have established mining incomes, but which have proven so beneficial to Australian mineral search in the past and which, under present policy, may be forced out of the business?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I think that is a fair proposition to put to the Treasurer. I add only a few words. I grew up in a mining area and it is perfectly true that much of the great rnining industry was originally the product of some men who put up with a hell of a lot of trouble and difficulty to find ore bodies. I feel the encouragement of that is well worth considering. .

page 1358

QUESTION

PAYMENT OF SPECIAL BENEFIT TO WORKERS INVOLVED IN LATROBE VALLEY DISPUTE

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

-I ask the Minister for Social Security whether she has given any recent instructions to block the payment of special benefit for the seven day waiting period to workers stood down as a result of the Latrobe Valley dispute, even though those workers fulfil the hardship criteria laid down by the DirectorGeneral last year. If not, will she give urgent instructions through her Department that the special benefit is still payable according to the guidelines to those who would otherwise suffer hardship?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I can confirm that I have given no recent instructions to my Department with regard to payment of special benefit. Special benefit is a benefit that is paid at the discretion of the Director-General, who did release a statement last year, as Senator Brown has indicated, setting out guidelines for the payment of the benefit. No change in those arrangements has been required by the Department and no instruction has been given by me with regard to this matter.

page 1358

QUESTION

PORT OF DARWIN: FORT HILL WHARF

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-I direct my queston to the Minister representing the Munster for the Northern Territory. In October 1975 the Bureau of Transport Economics produced a report on the Darwin Harbour situation entitled ‘Provision of General Cargo Facilities at the Port of Darwin’. I understand that since then there has been work carried out by the Department of Construction, the Northern Territory Port Authority, the Department of the Northern Territory, et cetera. Could the Minister now advise the present position in regard to the proposed upgrading of the port in Darwin, in regard particularly to Fort Hill Wharf which, following an assessment by engineers of the Northern Territory Port Authority, has been reported as being unsafe. With the transfer of powers to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, is it the intention of the Federal Government to retain responsibility for upgrading and redevelopment of the port, in view of defence requirements and the many other developments taking place in the area?

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

– I am unable to answer all the honourable senator’s questions, since this is the responsibility of a Minister in another place. I understand his interest in this field and am aware that for many years the matter of a backfilled wharf has been under discussion in Darwin.

Senator Kilgariff:

-Since 1897.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The senator says since 1897 and I recall that it was discussed when I was on the Public Works Committee some 10 years ago. My understanding is that the Department of Construction has carried out a tidal survey in the area to determine the stabilisation requirements of the land-backed facility and that such a suggestion was made in a report by the Bureau of Transport Economics some time ago. I also understand that the Port Authority is preparing a submission to the Northern Territory Executive Member for Transport and Industry, and expect that if it contains a recommendation for further work it will be received by the Minister and looked at promptly by the Government. In regard to the Fort Hill wharf I am unable to say whether the Commonwealth interest will be to retain it as a defence responsibility, but I shall have the Minister’s attention drawn to the honourable senator’s question.

page 1358

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HEALTH: REDFERN AMS NUTRITION PROGRAM

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Has the Redfern Aboriginal Medical Service Nutrition program been approved and recommended by both the Aboriginal health section of the New South Wales Health Commission and the Aboriginal Health Branch of the Australian Department of Health? Did the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt, state in reply to a question I asked on 6 September 1977 that he supported the program and was holding discussions on the matter with Mr Viner? If these are facts, how does the Minister equate these apparently misleading statements with the fact that neither the Department of Aboriginal Affairs nor the Department of Health has been in contact with the Aboriginal Medical Service since the meeting of 15 August 1977 at which the regional director of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Kevin Martin, stated categorically in front of witnesses that no funds were available for the Aboriginal Medical Service Nutrition Program for the 1977-78 year?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I shall refer the several matters raised by Senator Keeffe to the Minister for Health and obtain an early answer.

page 1358

QUESTION

HOBART: TRAFFIC LIGHT INSTALLATIONS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Transport recently been to Tasmania and had an opportunity to view the number of traffic lights that have been installed in Hobart during the last couple of years? The number of traffic lights seems to be growing like Topsy. Will the Minister have prepared a list of those traffic lights which were installed as a part of the cost of the Tasman Bridge restoration? Will the Minister ask the Minister for Transport to examine the possibility of supplying finance to sychronise Hobart traffic lights, which I must add seem to me to be much too common and are now starting to hinder traffic flow? Will the Minister further attempt to direct money that is allocated to the Tasmanian Government for use in the transport area to be spent first on synchronising the present traffic lights and removing unnecessary ones before installing any more?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– It is my pleasure frequently to go to Tasmania and to Hobart. It is a delightful place spoiled only by its indigenous politics. But even the indigenous politics cannot spoil the natural beauty of the place. I am aware that Hobart has a lot of traffic lights because I have had to journey often from the airport to the city and from the city to the airport. I am aware of the enormous cost involved in the Tasman Bridge restoration, particulars of which I tabled in the Senate recently. If my memory serves me correctly, the overall cost of replacing the bridge and all ancillary services, including the Bailey bridge, amounted to approximately $43m.

Senator Georges:

– What has that got to do with the traffic lights?

Senator CARRICK:

– I am reminded of what was written by the poet, John Dryden. He said:

The rest to some faint meaning make pretence, But Shadewell never deviates into sense.

The poet would have found a willing corner in the Senate today. I am not aware that the traffic lights at Hobart are not synchronised. I am aware that a lack of synchronisation of traffic lights can be a costly and time consuming thing. I Will direct the question to my colleague the Minister for Transport in another place and ask him to give it consideration.

page 1359

QUESTION

PAYMENTS OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to her interview on the AM program this morning regarding the payment of unemployment benefits to persons stood down as a result of industrial stoppages. In view of what she said on the AM program this morning, are we to understand that it is within the contemplation of the Government that wage earners should be made collectively responsible for any stand downs resulting from industrial stoppages in terms of non-payment of unemployment benefits?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am a little unclear as to the meaning of the question. The honourable senator asks me whether it is in contemplation that wage earners should be made collectively responsible for unemployment benefits. I would assert that through the taxes that they pay they are collectively burdened with the cost of all government services, in particular social security.

Senator BUTTON:

-Mr President, I rise to take a point of order. If the Minister does not understand the question, perhaps I can ask it again.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

- Mr President, if the question could be rephrased the point of it would be clearer to me.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Button, could you rephrase the question?

Senator BUTTON:

-The question is: In view of the comments made by the Minister for Social Security this morning on the AM program, are we to understand that the Government is contemplating non-payment of unemployment benefits to persons stood down as a result of industrial action? Is that not tantamount to saying that the wage earners should be made collectively responsible for industrial action wherever it occurs?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-My comments on the AM program this morning were to the effect that under the existing system the Government would be paying unemployment benefits to the persons affected by the recent stoppages in Victoria. I stressed that the existing policy would be used pending any changes that may be made in the legislation. If Senator Button wishes to assume from that that the Government is contemplating any non-payment of unemployment benefits and requiring wage earners at large to accept responsibility for such action, that is something that he may wish to assert if he chooses to do so. I made the statement this morning quite clearly. Senator Button and I often seem to be discussing the AM program. Not so long ago he directed another question to me about that program. The statement I made this morning was that the existing policy would be used pending any changes which may or may not be made to the legislation. That is a perfectly clear statement.

Senator BUTTON:

-I ask the Minister a supplementary question. I am quite clear as to what she said on the AM program this morning about payments to persons in Victoria who have been stood down as a result of the current stoppages, but my question was directed to the other things which she said and which she ignored in her answer to the question. She said this morning that the trade union movement may have to assume collective responsibility. I asked a question in relation to that expression.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-Statements made with regard to the trade union movement accepting collective responsibility for industrial disputes which cause thousands of people to be stood down I think are responsible statements. There is a collective responsibility in the trade union movement when it withdraws an essential service and causes countless thousands of people to be stood down as a result of that union action. If that is a statement to which the honourable senator takes exception I think that view would not be shared by many people in this country. There is a grave feeling of disquiet in this country over the shutdown that has occurred in Victoria through the actions of some members of the trade union movement and I believe there is a collective responsibility on the part of the members of the union movement to ensure that those who have jobs and are able and willing to work may do so.

page 1360

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer or to the Minister for Education. Is the Minister aware of an interview with Mr Samuel on Monday Conference in which he said that while investigating the allegation that the Australian National University was facing a crisis over cash he was handed a circular distributed from the University which said that it had $90,000 to spare and it did not know what to do with it. He said it was a questionnaire to members of the staff asking them what they thought the surplus money should be spent on. Some of the suggestions were a holiday camp on the South Coast, a holiday farm, a nudist camp, scholarships for the children of staff, an alpine lodge in the Snowy Mountains, donations to charity, canteen facilities, a child care centre, a do-it-yourself car service facility, a fishing lodge in the Jindabyne area, a gymnasium, and a heated swimming pool. Those were some of the suggestions from staff of the University. Will the Minister examine the possibility of calling university administrators before our Estimates Committees so that they can be questioned about these matters?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I begin by saying to all honourable senators who wish to enroll in a course that the courses will be open as from early January and I will facilitate entry for them if they will indicate which of those facilities they seek. Having said that, I did not see the program but because of a number of comments made to me I have obtained the transcript and I will study it. I cannot say as to the truth or otherwise of the matter until I have studied the transcript. As the honourable senator will know from his profession, there is an old saying that the hard cases make bad law and one needs to decide whether this is a hard case or in fact one of a general stream of cases. As to the question of bringing such a body before the Estimates Committees, I simply have to say in old fashioned language, mea culpa. In other words, when there is an estimates committee and a Federal Minister for Education there is the opportunity to say to the responsible Minister that he, with his officers, should be subject to examination concerning the accounts of all institutions, including the ANU, and I accept that responsibility.

Senator Wheeldon:

– An unusual statement.

Senator CARRICK:

– I understand Senator Wheeldon ‘s renewed interest in the subject matter. Of course, he may see me -privately later. It may well be that there is need for a better presentation of accounts of such statutory bodies before Estimates committee hearings. I think perhaps it is desirable that the presentation of the annual reports of such bodies as the Australian National University be made ahead of Estimates committee hearings. I shall see whether I can facilitate that.

page 1360

QUESTION

WHYALLA

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I refer to the deputation from the City of Whyalla which met the Minister some weeks ago and also to the information that he has given to the Senate about the visit of officers of three departments to Whyalla and the subsequent reports. Is the Minister in a position yet to give us or to give the City of Whyalla any information about the results of those visits? Have any recommendations been made following those visits which may affect the position in Whyalla?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-As I have said, it was a very useful visit. I was grateful to the South Australian senators, including Senator Bishop, for encouraging the visit and for being helpful to the people concerned in Whyalla and to the officers who went to Whyalla. The matter is now before four departments- my Department, the Department of Social Security, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the

Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development. The details have been sent to the departments with a view to trying to achieve a consolidated position so that we can do something to help Whyalla. I wrote to the Mayor yesterday indicating that situation to her. I also indicated that when I had something firm to offer I would go to Whyalla. Equally, once I have such informaton available I will ensure that the Senate has access to it.

page 1361

QUESTION

DENTAL BENEFITS

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Can the Minister say whether patients treated under dental specialties of orthodontics, pedodontics, prosthodontics, periodontics, endodontics and oral surgery are paid higher benefits by health funds than the benefits paid to patients of general dental practitioners? Can she also indicate whether Medibank has a higher scale of benefits for patients of dental specialists? If not, will the Minister ask her colleague in another place to consult the funds and Medibank to correct what appears to be an anomaly in the health scheme?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not able to give the precise information with regard to the specialised services mentioned by Senator Jessop in his question. But I am aware that under the provisions of the Health Insurance Act medical benefits are not payable for dental services. However, private health insurance organisations may, if they so desire, provide benefits under supplementary benefits tables for services such as the ones that have been outlined. The Government has maintained the policy in relation to supplementary benefits of largely allowing private health insurance organisations, including Medibank Private, to determine for themselves the nature and extent of supplementary benefits they may wish to offer and the terms and conditions applicable to the payment of those benefits. The Government’s role in respect of any supplementary benefits is largely one of approving benefits and relevant contribution rates in the context of financial viability of the table. In 1971 the then government implemented a recommendation of the Nimmo Committee that a range of medical services which were already included in the medical benefits schedule should attract medical benefits when carried out by approved dental practitioners in the operating theatres of approved hospitals. Until that time medical benefits had been payable only where these services were rendered by a registered medical practitioner. At present there are 83 such services in the schedule. When these services are carried out by approved dentists, medical benefits are payable at the same rate as if the services were performed by a recognised specialist medical practitioner. I will direct the question to the Minister for Health to see whether further information can be given on the specific matters that have been raised.

page 1361

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister seen reports that Australian cattle are being shipped from Darwin to East Timor to feed Indonesian troops stationed in that country? Is the Minister able to confirm or deny such reports?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I have not seen the reports but I will make inquiries for the honourable senator and let him know.

page 1361

QUESTION

SOLAR ENERGY RESEARCH: ALLOCATION BY THE WRAN GOVERNMENT

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Science, relates to the recent allocation of over $lm by the Wran New South Wales Government to the University of Sydney for solar energy research. Has the Minister any knowledge of how the Wran Government decided that the University of Sydney is more deserving than any other tertiary institution in New South Wales which is carrying out solar research, such as the New South Wales Institute of Technology?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The question which the honourable senator asks is quite an important one in relation to Commonwealth activity and to the Australian Research Grants Scheme. The Senate may recall that some six or so months ago a number of universities were willing to say that they had particular breakthroughs in the use of solar energy. The University of Sydney was one such body. My interest was alerted through the Australian Research Grants Scheme. Under the scheme, grants are made to researchers with work of excellence. They are able to obtain, upon application, some financial support for their work.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The question was how Wran made up his mind. Can you say that?

Senator WEBSTER:

– Yes, I can. I suggest that the honourable senator should be careful. I was about to say that honourable senators op- posite may recall the ARG Scheme. When the Labor Party was in power it cut down the amount of money that was given for this area of research of excellence. It did so to its disgrace throughout all universities. Senator Cavanagh took that decision whilst he was a Minister. It was most regrettable. Two of the researchers at the University of Sydney, Dr Brian Window, who has a reputation in this field, and, I think, Dr Derrick, were grantees under the scheme. They received their money for solar energy research in relation to evacuated tubes and selective surfaces. I was alerted at that stage that Mr Wran, having been invited over and having cooked an egg for breakfast- as we saw in the newspapershad announced that his selection had been to grant $ 1.08m to the University of Sydney to assist with its work. Apparently the university had entered into an agreement with Mr Wran that some commissions were to be paid or some patents were to be taken out. The Commonwealth interest is obvious. It had an interest in this scheme. Senator Thomas may be interested to know that, as at this date, I am advised that no money has been paid by Mr Wran following the great publicity given to him six months ago. Indeed what this all means is worth some investigation. There was great publicity that the Premier had entered the field and had promised funds. That has not occurred.

page 1362

QUESTION

PRODUCTION OF SPARK PLUGS IN AUSTRALIA

Senator MELZER:

– I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether it is true that no spark plugs are produced in Australia and that they all have to be imported. As this puts Australia in a most vulnerable position, what initiatives are being taken by the Government to remedy the situation?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-It is true that there is a very low production of spark plugs in Australia. It is equally true that the matter was referred to the Reversion Committee on applications for import. That Committee consists of a member of my Department, a member of the Customs branch of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs and an independent chairman. People who wish to import go before the Committee. People who wish to make products in Australia go before the Committee. The Committee makes judgments. On those judgments the Government will act. It was regarded as a case where the costs were such that it was worthwhile importing spark plugs. From the security aspect the decision was fully justified. I am happy to examine the matter again and after Question Time I will look at it.

page 1362

QUESTION

INTERVIEWS WITHIN PARLIAMENT HOUSE: CATTLEMEN’S UNION OF AUSTRALIA

The PRESIDENT:

-Yesterday Senator Sheil asked a question concerning a Cattlemen’s Union memorandum which was placed in the Press boxes on Tuesday, 1 1 October. In reply to Senator Sheil I advise that firstly I was not aware of the memorandum until he raised the question in the Senate. Secondly, I am advised that Senate Committee Room No. 4 was booked for a party committee from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Tuesday last and, of course, it is m order for a party committee to invite persons to address, or confer with, members of the committee. No permission was sought for the use of Committee Room No. 4 other than by the committee concerned and, so far as the Senate officers are aware, there was no unauthorised use of Senate Committee Room No. 4 on Tuesday evening.

Thirdly, so far as the Press is concerned, the general practice relating to interviews in the studios provided in Parliament House or in committee rooms is that such interviews may be held with members of the Commonwealth Parliament without prior approval of the Presiding Officers. Interviews may also be held with members of parliament from the States or other countries with the prior approval of the Presiding Officers. It is not the practice for interviews to be permitted with persons other than members of parliament in those areas. However, in exceptional circumstances the Presiding Officers may approve such interviews.

Senator McLAREN:
Victoria

-Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement on the statement that you have just made to the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator McLAREN:

-Mr President, I want to compliment you on the statement that you have made. I was disturbed when Senator Sheil raised that question yesterday and concerned about the inference that was attached to it. As secretary of the Parliamentary Labor Party’s resources committee it is my responsibility to ensure that committee rooms are booked for the holding of the meetings of the resources committee, which are held each Tuesday evening between the hours of 6 and 8 o’clock. I can only say to the Senate that I was responsible for inviting Mr Cassell to have discussions with the committee on Tuesday of this week and to talk over the problems which are now besetting the cattle industry. I was quite astonished to hear a person of the calibre of Senator Sheil- a Queensland senator- raising that question in a way that appeared to me to be some objecton to members of the Cattlemen’s Union being in Parliament House and having consultation and discussion with members of the Parliamentary Labor Party on the problems that are besetting their industry. I can only assume that the reason why Senator Sheil made such remarks in his question yesterday was that he was disappointed that the Cattlemen’s Union meeting in Toowoomba on 29 September carried a motion of no confidence in the Country Party Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) because of his lack of help for the cattle industry. That can be the only reason why Senator Sheil raised that matter in the Senate. As I have said, I take full responsibility for inviting Mr Cassell to attend this meeting of the committee in Parliament House. That is one of the many meetings we have had over the years with spokesmen for farmer organisations. We have invited them to come before the committee and discuss the problems that are associated with their particular sections of the industry. I am very gratified that you, Mr President, have seen fit to say that there is nothing wrong with committees of the Parliament inviting members of any organisation to be present in Parliament House for discussions with those committees on the problems that they see as affecting their industry.

page 1363

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 78 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, I present the annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Commission for 1 976-77.

That the Senate take note of the paper.

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1363

CITIZENSHIP

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 42 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, I present the annual return to Parliament of persons granted Australian citizenship during the year ended 30 June 1977.

That the Senate take note of the paper.

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1363

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 45 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 I present the annual report of the Industries Assistance Commission for 1976-77 together with a statement outlining the action taken during the year 1976-77 on reports made to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the papers.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1363

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

-On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts I present the 165th report. I seek leave to make a statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator MESSNER:

-The 165th report relates to the Committee’s inquiry into matters raised by the Auditor-General in his report for the financial year 1974-75. The Committee regrets the delay in tabling this report but the Committee’s normal timetable for conducting these inquiries was affected by the priority which the Committee considered should be given to the completion of its 162nd report arising from its inquiry into the financial administration of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

In this inquiry the Committee took evidence from the Departments of Industry and Commerce, Construction, and Environment, Housing and Community Development, relating to four matters. Regarding the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Committee took evidence on a number of unsatisfactory features relating to the unauthorised production by the Australian Government Clothing Factory of a range of civilian clothing for sale to the public through commercial outlets and to departmental staff. The evidence showed that the production of the particular civilian clothing mentioned by the AuditorGeneral was improperly authorised by the manager as it was not covered by a specific order or authorised by the Minister in accordance with government policy. The decision of the manager was also contrary to policy directions issued in 1969 and 1971 to all factory managers on this particular subject. The Committee believes that the manager who took the decision on the production of the civilian clothing should have made approaches to the Department’s central office and had he not already resigned from his position as manager the Department should have taken disciplinary action. The Committee found that in selling the manufactured garments to departmental staff proper procedures for banking Commonwealth moneys or for recording and maintaining adequate control over stock, sales and cash received were not followed. The Committee has expressed its concern that procedures laid down in legislation were also not followed and that experienced officers in the Department were apparently unaware of some extremely important principles incorporated in the Audit Act, finance regulations and finance directions for the control of public moneys and stores.

Evidence was taken from the Department of Construction in relation to unproductive expenditure occasioned by delays in the completion of two major building projects, the City South Telephone Exchange in Sydney and the Wellington Telephone Exchange in Perth. The Committee has noted that the then Postmaster-General’s Department made a decision to alter its requirements for the building of the City South Exchange after the documentation of the building had reached an advanced stage. The revised requirements caused a delay of approximately 10 months and resulted in the building being constructed in a period when the industrial and economic climate had altered dramatically. The Committee has expressed its concern that the alterations to the design of the building were made to accommodate equipment which had not been fully evaluated and which on evaluation proved to be unsatisfactory. We have reason to believe that these cases are not unique in the Commonwealth’s construction activities and that all departments concerned should tighten their procedures to ensure that money is not wasted on unnecessary and expensive alterations. Your Committee will be watching this situation closely. The Committee has also expressed its concern at delays by the Department in taking action to terminate the contract in spite of an extremely poor performance by the original contractor involved with the project.

Construction of the Wellington telephone exchange in Perth was delayed when serious doubts were raised as to the strength effectiveness of the building’s foundations. The Department of Construction had, on the recommendations of a firm of foundation engineering consultants, adopted a type of foundation different from that previously used successfully in most major buildings in Perth. The Committee has expressed its concern that the adequacy of the method for the foundations had not been sufficiently verified during test piling.

In relation to the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development, the Auditor-General had reported that amounts totalling $6,048,024 were paid under the States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974 although no warrant of the Governor-General had. been obtained for the expenditure. The Committee found that the financial year 1974-75 was apparently the first year that the then Department of the Treasury had not automatically obtained Governor-General’s warrant and issued warrant authorities for what appears to be schemes operating under similar legislation. The Committee expressed the view that the Treasury should have contacted the Department to inform it of the change in its requirements for 1974-75 and future years. The Committee therefore has attached no blame to the Department for its failure to obtain ministerial determination under the Act required by the Treasury as a pre-requisite to obtaining Governor-General’s warrant. The Committee has noted that the Department does not agree that such a determination is necessary under the Act before a warrant is issued and that the Department has sought a legal opinion on the matter. However, the Committee has expressed its concern that the Department failed to observe an important and fundamental principle in the control over the expenditure of public moneys by not ensuring that warrant authority had been issued by the Treasury before authorising the payment.

I commend the report to honourable senators.

page 1364

EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the admissibility of business records in evidence in proceedings in federal courts.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

The Bill will amend the Evidence Act 1905 to provide for business records to be admitted as evidence of the matters contained in them in proceedings before the High Court, the Federal Court of Australia and other federal courts on a uniform basis. Under the present law, the admissibility of such records depends on the law of the State in which the court sits. Laws of evidence relating to the admissibility of business records vary from State to State, so that the law to be applied in particular proceedings in, say, the Federal Court of Australia under the Trade Practices Act depends on the State in which the proceedings are heard. A change of venue or an adjournment of proceedings from one State to another may therefore result in a change in the applicable law, and even in evidence being rejected which would have been admissible had the proceedings continued in the original State. The Swanson Committee that reported on the Trade Practices Act therefore recommended that that Act should be amended to allow business records to be admitted in evidence, along the lines of the recommendations made on the subject by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. Provisions for this purpose were included in the Trade Practices Bill introduced into the Parliament in February this year. The Government subsequently decided that it would be desirable to apply such provisions generally in proceedings in federal courts. Under the present Bill the provisions for business records to be admitted as evidence will apply to all proceedings before the High Court and federal courts.

The Bill is substantially identical to provisions contained in the New South Wales Evidence Act following an amendment to that Act in 1976 to give effect to the report of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. In the absence of a special statutory provision, business records are not generally admissible in a legal proceeding to prove matters which are recorded in them. This exclusion results from the fact that business records, like other written material, are regarded as hearsay evidence. The rule against hearsay evidence applies to evidence which is not given in court by a person having actual knowledge of the matter in question. As a general rule, the exclusion of hearsay evidence is clearly based on a sound principle. Evidence given directly by a person who nas actual knowledge of the matter in question is more likely to be accurate than evidence of what that person said on the matter, either to someone else or in documentary form.

The admissibility of business records under the Bill is not intended to detract from the value accorded to oral evidence given on oath in court.

Where evidence is given in person the worth of that evidence can be properly assessed by crossexamination and in the light of the manner and conduct of the person giving it. It could be expected that, where practicable, oral evidence will continue to be given on matters of importance and on matters which are likely to be the subject of dispute, notwithstanding that evidence of those matters could also be admitted in the form of a business record. There are, however, occasions when evidence, which is strictly hearsay evidence, should be admissible. In certain circumstances hearsay evidence may be the best or only evidence available on a particular matter. Business records are likely to be created in circumstances which will often make them the most reliable record of the facts contained in them. They are, for example, likely to be created at the time of or soon after the occurrence of events recorded in them, when there is a clear recollection of those events. Furthermore, where a record is maintained in the course of business, there is generally no incentive to misrepresent the matters contained in the record.

The need to provide a means of enabling such records to be used in evidence in legal proceedings arises, in many cases, because of the difficulty in locating or identifying the person who made the relevant record. In other cases, the expense or delay involved in calling witnesses to give evidence in person on a minor or noncontentious matter could be avoided by relying on a business record which contains evidence of that matter. The term ‘business records’ is intended to cover a wide range of documents. Documents created by government in the course of administration, as well as those created by business in the commercial sense, are included. The records, which will be admissible under the Bill, will include documentary records such as books, plans, paper and the like, and records obtainable by mechanical devices, such as computers. The Bill contains certain restrictions on the admissibility of business records designed to ensure that a party against whom such records are sought to be used as evidence is not unfairly prejudiced. A wide discretion is given to a court to exclude evidence otherwise admissible under the Bill, where its admission would be unfair to a party to the proceedings. As well, there are special safeguards regarding the use of business records in a criminal proceeding.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1366

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

That Senator Donald Cameron be granted leave of absence for one month on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business.

page 1366

STATES GRANTS (HOUSING ASSISTANCE) BILL 1977

Bill received from the House of Represenatives

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 and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– I move:

Senator CARRICK:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

This Bill provides for the payment to the States in 1977-78 of the sum of $390m as advances for welfare housing under the provisions of the 1973-1974 Housing Agreement. The advances are repayable over 53 years with interest at highly concessional rates. The allocation for this financial year is $15m more than was made available in 1976-77. The funds will be distributed among the States as follows:

The apportionment of each State’s allocation between the State housing authority and the Home Builders’ Account of the State is determined by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community after consultation with the House Minister of the State concerned. Allocations to the State housing authorities are to assist with the provision of dwellings for rental or sale on a concessional basis to low income families; those advances bear interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum. Allocations to the State

Home Builders’ Accounts are to provide low interest housing loans to prospective homeowners who meet the eligibility criteria of the Housing Agreement; they bear interest at 4% per cent per annum. Honourable senators will recall that this is the final year of operation of the fiveyear Housing Agreement entered into by the Whitlam Government in 1973 with each of the States. Over the five year period, 1973-74 to 1977-78, the States Will have received concessional interest rate advances totalling $ 1,734m for welfare housing. The early years of the Agreement were marked by rapid acceleration of the amounts made available, followed by a levelling out in 1975-76 that resulted in some adjustments to the housing programs of some States.

This Government’s aim, however, continues to be to maintain activity in the welfare housing area on an even keel. We had done this by maintaining as a basis the high level of advances reached in 1975-76 and providing steady increases in 1976-77- $ 10.4m- and again in this year. Information on welfare housing activity in 1976-77 provided by the States indicates that loans made from Home Builders’ Account moneys were responsible for completion or purchase of 9,475 homes and, in addition, the State housing authorities commenced 9,420 dwellings and completed 8,530 dwellings in the year. Housing authority work on hand at the beginning of 1 976-77 comprised 6,750 dwellings. This had increased to 7,640 dwellings under construction as at 30 June 1977. The funds to be made available to the States under this Bill will ensure continuing steady activity in the public housing sector throughout this financial year.

As to the private housing sector, activity reached a high level in most States in 1976. Private investment in dwellings in Australia as a whole in the December quarter of 1976 was 40 per cent higher in real terms than in mid-1975. Activity was most bouyant in South and Western Australia but subdued in New South Wales. This growth in new dwelling construction in 1 976 was not matched in all States by growth in demand and there was some build-up m stocks of unsold dwellings in the latter part of 1976. Adjustment to those excess stocks and some temporary reduction in housing finance resulted in a fall back in industry activity in the first half of 1977. In 1976-77 as a whole, however, private investment in dwellings was 9 per cent greater in real terms than in 1975-76. The Government has been concerned to ensure that the availability of finance is not a barrier to steady sustainable growth in home building activity. Following a temporary slowdown in lending by savings banks early in 1977, the level of new lending for housing has been increasing again since May. On a seasonally adjusted basis the level of lending for housing by banks and permanent building societies in July was the highest so far in 1977 and is now approaching the high levels prevailing in 1975-76.

As the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) announced in his Budget Speech, the Government has informed the Reserve Bank that it wants to see banks and other financial institutions encouraged to increase their lending for private home building, particularly in those States and areas where the capacity of the building industry is underutilised. The rundown in the unsold stock of houses together with increased levels of lending is expected to result in moderate growth in house building activity during the rest of 1977-78, with activity by the end of the period returning to the high levels of mid- 1976. The present Housing Agreement has achieved a great deal in the provision of good quality rental accommodation and concessional housing finance for low to moderate income earners. Nevertheless, the Government is acutely aware that much more could have been done in this area with the funds provided under this Agreement and under successive earlier housing agreements if the substantial subsidies attaching to these funds had been applied more assiduously to those in need. We are looking to the States, in the negotiatons now in train for a new housing agreement to come into operation after June 1978, to agree to institute new practices that would result in the housing subsidies being directed more closely to those in need and in the withdrawal of concessions where the real need for them has passed. We expect to bring forward in due course legislation for a new and improved housing agreement. In the meantime, the Government has agreed with the States to certain amendments to remove some of the restrictive terms of the current agreement where each State so wished. We shall bring forward legislation to effect these amendments. The States will be able to apply the advances provided under this Bill and under comparable earlier legislation in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Housing Agreement as amended by the new legislation that I have mentioned. The Bill authorises the Treasurer to pay to the States in the first six months of 1978-79 the sum of $195m, which is half the allocation for 1977-78, distributed on the same basis as the advances in the current financial year. Moreover, the Bill authorises the Treasurer to determine the terms and conditions applying to the advances made in the period from 1 July 1978. This provision will enable the Treasurer to continue payments to the States for welfare housing after the expiration of the current Agreement on 30 June 1978 until legislation for a new agreement, and an appropriation measure for 1978-79 pursuant to the new agreement, are passed by the Parliament. Authority is also provided to the Treasurer to borrow the moneys necessary for making the advances to the States under the Bill. The repayable interest bearing advances will, as circumstances dictate, be made either from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or the Loan Fund. Provision is made for any payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for this purpose to be reimbursed in due course from the Loan Fund, when the Treasurer considers this appropriate. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1367

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Estimates Committee A

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I bring up the report of Estimates Committee A on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the years 1977-78, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings. I move:

In moving the motion to print the report, may I explain to honourable senators that the printing of the appendix, which incorporates additional material received by the Committee, has been excluded because arrangements have been made, I understand, by all Estimates committees to have additional material received incorporated as far as it is practicable to do so in a single Estimates Committee Hansard volume.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Estimates Committee B

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

-I bring up the report from Estimates Committee B on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1977-78, together with the Hansard record of the Committee ‘s proceedings.

Ordered that the report, excluding the appendix, be printed.

Estimates Committee C

Senator MARTIN:
Queensland

-I bring up the report from Estimates Committee C on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1977-78, together with the Hansard report of the Committee ‘s proceedings.

Ordered that the report, excluding the appendix, be printed.

Estimates Committee D

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– I bring up the report of Estimates Committee D on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1977-78, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings. I move:

For the information of honourable senators I table eight reports which were presented to the Committee by the Department of Health in response to requests for additional information. Because of their combined bulk, they have not been included in the Committee’s report. I also table replies containing additional information from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs which have been received by the Committee subsequent to the preparation of its report.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Estimates Committee E

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

-I bring up the report from Estimates Committee E on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1977-78, together with the Hansard record of the Committee ‘s proceedings.

Ordered that the report, excluding the appendix, be printed.

Estimates Committee F

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I bring up the report of Estimates Committee F on the particulars of proposed expenditure for the year 1977-78, together with the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings. In doing so I seek leave to make a few brief remarks in relation to the report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator RAE:

– I should like to draw the attention of honourable senators to a section of the report in relation to matters concerning more than, shall I say, the routine function of the Committee. That section is set out on pages 4 and the following pages of the report which I have just brought up. In its report to the Senate in October 1976, the Committee expressed agreement with the view of the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System that the scrutiny function of Estimates committees would be enhanced and made more effective by providing them with both a full-time function and full-time staff. On 10 November 1976, the Senate resolved that certain matters concerning the effectiveness of Estimates committees be referred to the Standing Orders Committee.

In February of this year the Standing Orders Committee recommended that for the time being- and I emphasise those words- no action be taken upon this part of the resolution, and the Senate adopted that report. Estimates Committee F reiterates the view expressed in its 1976 report and in the Senate resolution concerning the provision of full-time staff and recommends that the Senate again refer this matter to the Standing Orders Committee for further consideration.

The Committee is, however, cognisant of possible constraints upon the immediate provision of full-time secretariat services in relation to the operation of the Estimates committees. It therefore suggests as an interim measure only that staff of the Senate Committee secretariat might be seconded temporarily to Estimates committees to examine, the extensive documentation provided by departments and to assist Committee members in preparation for the hearings, particularly in relation to the listing of matters arising in previous hearings and needing further examination and follow-up.

The Committee believes that this is an important matter in the evolution of the parliamentary and in particular the Senate committee system. It seeks the co-operation of the Senate in giving this matter further consideration to make more effective the operation of our already effective Estimates committees which have the capacity to be more effective if some greater assistance can be provided in that relatively short period between the time the material becomes available and the hearings. We simply seek that the matter be further considered. If nothing can be done about the provision of full-time staff, we believe that at least some arrangements should be made. There is considerable expertise amongst the Senate committee secretariat. If that expertise could be made available during that preparatory period, we believe it would enhance the operation of the Estimates committees. I thank the Senate for granting me leave to draw attention to that aspect of the report.

Ordered that the report, excluding the appendix, be printed.

page 1369

OFFICE OF NATIONAL ASSESSMENTS BILL 1977

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 12 October. The Bill.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I wish to ask the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) a question in relation to clause 17(1) (a) of the Bill in connection with staff of the Office. Will a staff ceiling be placed on this Office when it is set up?

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I am told by the advisers that yes, the establishment will be settled by the Public Service Board and a staff ceiling will be imposed thereon.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I draw the Minister’s attention to clause 1 9 of the Bill which states:

The Director-General shall, at least once in each year, and at any other time when he considers it necessary or desirable to do so, furnish to the Minister a report on the operations of the Office.

I ask the Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to table any report of this body in the Parliament each year.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I have no knowledge of that. I shall seek the information and let the honourable senator know later. The honourable senator will realise that there is no obligation to report to the Parliament. As to what the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) intends to do with this annual report, I shall have to seek that information from him directly. I shall obtain that information for the honourable senator.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1369

QUESTION

BUDGET PAPERS 1977-78

Debate resumed from 11 October 1977 on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Senate take note of the papers.

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

At end of motion, add “, but the Senate is of the opinion that the Budget:

a) will intensify and prolong the recession;

b) will increase unemployment;

will have little impact on inflation;

d ) will make regressive changes in the tax system; and

will reduce living standards”.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– When I concluded on Tuesday evening I was discussing the costs that go with the sale of meat and the wage rates paid to boners in particular, which have increased by 195 per cent over a period when average weekly earnings have increased by 95 per cent. I was also preparing to examine other areas of cost.

The main reasons for the increasing costs are to be found outside the industry and are now being influenced by such things as the fact that in many meatworks, I understand, slaughtermen are able to complete their daily tally by about 1 1 o’clock in the morning, at which point they become eligible for overtime.

We have also the export quota for the sale of livestock adding to the cost of the industry generally, and reducing returns accordingly. I frankly do not accept the idea that Australia’s export policy is to be determined on the wharves of Woolloomooloo. The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union is talking about preserving the share of its members, but I think it reasonable to repeat that their share is already very good and, as I have said, increased from 5 17,000 tonnes of export meat in 1974-75 to 857,000 in 1976-77, a 50 per cent increase in two years. I would like to see a lot of effort given to further increasing our livestock exports; there are many advantages to that course at this stage. It would give us a chance to change the various stock components that exist. It would assist in achieving a quick clearance of certain areas of our livestock population, where that would be desirable. It would enable us to balance our disposal generally. It would give us the opportunity to develop meat markets m certain places and it would provide additional cash flow to people who, at the moment, need it very badly. Livestock export would take the form of exporting cattle and sheep for both slaughter and breeding purposes. A few months ago I had the opportunity to attend the World Shorthorn Convention in Sydney, where visitors from overseas stated that Australian Shorthorn cattle were at least equal to the best cattle in the world. It was recently reported also that Angus cattle here were better than those in the country of origin.

Senator Cotton:

– What about Murray Greys and Herefords?

Senator ARCHER:

-The Murray Greys are doing very nicely as, of course, are some of the European breeds that have been recently introduced, but I would not like to proceed further on that point.

Senator Cotton:

-Give them a little plug.

Senator ARCHER:

– The trade commissioner service has recently produced an excellent document on the potential for livestock sales. It goes into great detail as to the countries where such sales would be possible. It appears that the best opportunities are presented in those countries that are closest to Australia- Malaysia, Hongkong, Singapore, the Solomon Islands and Indonesia. Those countries are trying to build up herds, so there we are presented with a great opportunity. Our cattle have much less disease than is found in the cattle of most other countries. If we can build up a reputation for having a good quantity of high quality cattle there is no reason why we cannot continue to expand for years to come.

I also favour the export of livestock because, in many cases, where cattle are going to be slaughtered the opportunity is presented to give the people a chance to acquire a taste for meat, after which we would be able to convert them to the buying of carcass meat, as we have begun to do in a big way in the Arabian countries. I think that is the best way to expand our exports.

The financial questions concerning farming that are being debated at the moment are largely, as I have already said, a hangover from problems that have arisen over the last few years. The Bureau of Agricultural economics recently produced figures indicating that the trend towards increasing costs has lessened. I would like to give the figures for half a dozen items only. Their index shows that although the figure for total prices paid in 1974-75 was 30 per cent, in 1975-76 it had been reduced to 17.2 per cent and in 1976-77 to 11.5 per cent. Replacement parts showed, for the same years, figures of 2 1 per cent, 20 per cent and 12.5 per cent. Building materials showed a drop of 22.6 per cent to 17.3 per cent, to 13.6 per cent. Wages dropped from 37 to 13.6 per cent, and to 9.7 per cent. Insurance dropped from 51.5 to 36.6 and then to 5.6. Interest fell from 62.7 to 20.3 and then to 10.5. That shows a downward trend in the ratio of costs. Clearly, this is progress and I think we can only feel sorry for the farmers who have, justifiably, started to despair about the declining reserves and lack of cash flow that they have experienced.

I was interested in an article which appeared in the first edition of the National Farmer under the heading ‘Myth of the Meat Marketing Miracle’. The most important thing that was said in that rather wordy article, which said little else, was:

Governments cannot guarantee access to overses markets; stabilisation schemes cannot guarantee profitability. The right to produce is not the right to make a profit.

It is unfortunate, but that is the way it is. There are a great number of farmers who are trying to assist. There are many people who are working very hard to bring about a recovery. Most of them have been in the business all their lives, or for generations, and fully understand the vagaries of farming, but that does not cure the problem. I do not think it is any solution at the moment to have the screamers entering the field. They are really achieving nothing but getting the backs up of people who have traditionally supported the farmers and have tried to understand them. This is a time when understanding is absolutely vital.

It concerns me greatly that a journalist of the standing of Ronald Anderson, who is widely read throughout Australia, was prompted to produce an article under the heading ‘Memo to farmers: Sell or shut up! ‘, which went on to say:

I’m sick to death of hearing farmers whinging about what a tough life they have and how hard up they are.

I’m sick of hearing about farmers who live poor and die rich.

And I’m sick of paying taxes so that farmers can preserve their assets for their children.

It’s about time some farmers started seeing themselves as part of the Australian community.

I think it is deplorable that we have reached the stage when journalists who have supported the rural industry for so long are starting to take that attitude, more or less in desperation. We need the support and the understanding of the people in the cities as well as the people in country areas. It is most unfortunate that a handful of rowdies should destroy the understanding that has been built up over many years.

Finally, in respect to the livestock question, I must raise the matter of disease eradication. I am very concerned about brucellosis and tuberculosis, but mainly brucellosis, and the remnants of it existing throughout Australia. In the national herd context, there is not a lot of brucellosis. But it exists in areas where it will really take work to clean it up. It is the absolute time bomb with which the industry is faced. I and the industry generally appreciate very greatly the extra funds that have been made available to get on with the eradication campaign. I believe that some States are exhibiting what must be called criminal contempt of the situation in neglecting something that just cannot be neglected any longer. I feel also that the producer organisations are not taking the matter seriously enough. I believe that they should be demanding of their parliamentary representatives and their governments that eradication be completed and be completed quickly.

There is a time fuse on this bomb. The first of the major exporting countries that can operate on a basis of having clean meat is at a tremendous advantage and will totally disadvantage all other meat exporting countries. The first meat exporting country to produce clean meat will wipe Australia out of the meat exporting market. I attended a meeting in Queensland last year at which I spoke to one of the gentlemen prominent in the industry. I asked him: ‘What are you doing about your brucellosis eradication?’. He said: We do not have time for brucellosis eradication. We are too busy trying to make a living’. He became very upset when I replied to him: ‘If you do not do something about brucellosis eradication, you will have all the time in the world to consider if.

We had a particular problem in the Northern Territory where, under the Aboriginal Lands Act, the Aboriginal communities have quite substantial numbers of cattle. Apparently, although the ordinance states that the cattle should be tested, there is no way that the relevant authority can see that this is done. Great concern will have to be shown for this problem of encouraging the Aborigines to participate in the program for their own good. Like the rest of the cattle producers in Australia, the cattle will be of no use to them if there is no market anyway.

I would like to leave the rural situation and talk for a few minutes about industry in general. I will start with the Tasmanian scene. We have been very grateful in Tasmania for the Callaghan inquiry into the structure of industry and the employment situation in Tasmania and the report it has produced. Sir Bede Callaghan made a very thorough assessment of the Tasmanian situation. If I had to summarise what he says in a sentence, I would say it like this: If you like Tasmania, live there and enjoy it. But it is not the place to go to if you are in business. Of course, Tasmania has all the usual problems that go with business plus the local ones. It is the most decentralised State. But Tasmania has only the problems of decentralisation and none of the advantages that go with it. In Tasmania generally labour is too dear. Hydro-electric power is far too dear. In fact, power for industry is 25 per cent dearer in Tasmania than it is in decentralised areas of Victoria. Maintenance and installation of plant and equipment is very expensive. Spares are difficult to obtain and delivery is slow. Telephone costs, telex charges and everything else are tremendously expensive. Freight costs, in spite of freight equalisation, is still dear. The freight equalisation proposals, as they have been implemented, have provided the greatest single advantage that any government has ever given to Tasmania. However, they do not give Tasmania anything at all; they only reduce some of the problems that it suffered more than the other States.

There are two or three areas of the report that at this juncture I would like to quote from, although the report itself I understand will be debated in the Senate later. Although the headlines the newspapers carried the day after the report was released quoted the Tasmanian Premier as saying there were 20 ways in which the report showed that the Federal Government should assist Tasmania, they did not go on to state the ways in which the Tasmanian Government disadvantaged Tasmanian industry. I would like to read one or two paragraphs from the report. It was submitted to the inquiry as stated on page 13 of the report:

Perhaps the strangest facet of the Tasmanian industrial scene is the constant desire to attract industry to the State combined with virtually no practical incentives to retain manufacturing in Tasmania … the Victorian Government oners finance, land and buildings, subsidies for the transfer of plant and personnel, for those establishing in country areas. In addition there is a 100 per cent payroll tax rebate, and also the remission of land tax. Few, if any, of these inducements are available to Tasmanian industry.

On page 95 of the report mention is made of various minor items. For example, it is stated that ‘average income in Tasmania is considerably lower than in the other States. Spending power of Tasmanians is significantly reduced’. It is stated also that during the past decade, the unemployment rate in Tasmania has been, on average, one-third higher than the all-Australian average. These are things that have always been part of the Tasmanian industrial scene. It is stated on page 1 18 of the report, with respect to the submission of the Tasmanian Government:

The State Government claims that its existing priorities preclude further assistance of a financial nature to industry. In this respect, the State is no longer competitive with other States for the establishment of a wide range of new industries (both Australian and foreign companies).

Other States provide considerably more financial incentives to industry such as payroll tax rebates, rail freight concessions, establishment grants and loans.

The final quotation I wish to make from the report is contained on page 122 where it is stated:

I have indicated elsewhere in this report the need for the Tasmanian Government to prepare programs to assist the development of small business.

In other words, what Sir Bede Callaghan is saying is that certainly Tasmanian industry is disadvantaged but the biggest disadvantage it has is the Tasmanian Government which has made it adequately clear that it does not want industry in the State and is not prepared to do anything to help it. I think that the quotations I have just read should be coupled with what was said by Mr Peter Walker, the Federal President and currently State President of the Taxpayers’ Association. In commenting on the Tasmanian Budget, he said:

The 1977 Tasmanian Budget leaves this State with the hardest and most discriminatory probate taxes in Australia.

Providing an inducement for getting industry or people into Tasmania naturally is not easy. The job that Senator Cotton, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and other Ministers are doing to try to assist Tasmania will require some consideration from the State Government as well. Tasmania has played a prominent part in the Australian textile industry for many years. The closure of Kelsall and Kemp (Tasmania) Ltd was a very bad blow to Tasmania and a great loss to the textile industry of Australia as a whole. I feel that a textile industry holds a very important place in the whole of the Australian economy. However, the textile industry, like the butter and cheese industries, requires assistance and it is both desirable and necessary that it should have assistance.

Having had a good look at many of the textile operators in Australia I am satisfied that by production standards many of them are very competitive. They are efficient but on a cost-wage basis they have problems. It is a national problem. It is not a problem peculiar to that particular industry. Not enough people are prepared to concede that this is the point. I do not see that we should try to eliminate efficient industries, but I certainly believe that in the case of certain industries that were mentioned here yesterday they should be eliminated unless they are prepared to become efficient. Having spoken to the textile and clothing industry organisations and having kept an eye on the market place as well, I believe that the textile and clothing industries at the moment are looking to a better period of trading than they have looked to for a number of years. I believe that the changes that have been made to the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement and to the trade arrangements with New Zealand have tidied that area a lot. The whole system of quotas has been rationalised. I think that by the time arrangements have been completed everybody will know exactly where they stand. We have reached a stage when retailers are now in need of stock. The way is open for an expansion in many new businesses. I think that now the quota has been adjusted, many of the rackets that have beset the industry will decline.

I understand the retailer position. What retailers need most is stock and business to run at a profit, but I must admit that I am not convinced that the extraordinarily large import business has, in fact, benefited the customer to the degree that it should have done. In spite of the prophets of doom and gloom we can see that business has improved. The business section in the Age of 6 October under the heading ‘Boom profit year belies slump’ made a couple of important points that even the protagonists cannot ignore. It said that a survey of stock exchange listed companies reporting for the year to 30 June revealed that profits jumped 28.3 per cent from $800m to $ 1,028m and that sales, with a few exceptions, were also buoyant, rising by 18.8 per cent from $2 1,644m to $25,954m. This is very healthy and it shows that we are starting to make some progress again. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12.59 to 2.15 p.m.

page 1372

SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- It gives me very considerable pleasure to be able to announce to the Senate today a number of decisions which the Government has taken to improve the finance facilities available to small businesses. This is a joint statement being made by me as the Minister with overall responsibility for small business matters. It is being made in the House of Representatives by my colleague the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) who does, of course, have overall responsibility for matters relating to the finance market.

Importance of small business

Small business plays a fundamental role in our free enterprise economy. Recent statistics indicate that small businesses in manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade encompass about 200,000 enterprises employing more than one million people. To bring these figures into perspective, only about 35,000 of these enterprises are within the manufacturing sector while the vast majority, that is about 165,000 firms, employing about 600,000 people, are engaged in the retail and wholesale trade. A further 150,000 enterprises in the building, transport, finance and other tertiary areas make up the balance. So, overall, excluding primary production, some 350,000 enterprises are small businesses- over 90 per cent of the total of all business- and employ about 30 per cent of the labour force, around two million people.

But small businesses also play a number of particular roles in the economy and in society generally which give them an importance beyond that indicated by statistics of that kind. For example, they provide an important means of entry into business of new entrepreneurial talent and new techniques and processes. They produce many specialised products of relatively small quantities and provide for local needs and services quickly and cheaply together with a high standard of personalised service. Small business also represents a challenge and a stimulation to large established enterprises. Beyond that, and to speak about less tangible but perhaps fundamentally more important aspects, small business fosters a spirit of independence and initiative, so important in our liberal, democratic society.

This Government ranks small business very high indeed on its list of concerns. I think that the rest of the community too is becoming increasingly aware of the importance of a strong, dynamic small business sector. Its voice is being heard more and more as small business seeks to establish itself as a recognisable, distinct identity within the community. The Government welcomes recent efforts made by representatives of small businesses in organising such a diverse and numerous sector into various groups and organisations that are more able to present the small business viewpoint in a clear and united manner.

Over the last two years the Government members small business committee has been invetigating the problems of small business and has made a major contribution to the Government’s knowledge and understanding of the issues facing small business. The committee consists of the following members: Mr Ken Aldred, honourable member for Henty, Chairman; Senator Tony Messner, our colleague from South Australia, Deputy Chairman; Mr Peter Johnson, honourable member for Brisbane, Secretary; Mr Ray Braithwaite, honourable member for Dawson; Mr Colin Carige, honourable member for Capricornia; Mr Geoff Giles, honourable member for Angas. In addition the report of the task force on finance for small business has provided the Government with much useful information about the availability of finance for small business and the claims made by small business with respect to their financial requirements during stages of establishment and growth. The task force consisted of representatives from the Departments of Industry and Commerce, whose representative was the Chairman, Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Treasury, Finance, Business and Consumer Affairs, and Productivity, and the Reserve Bank of Australia.

The Government moved quickly when elected to office to introduce a number of financial measures to relieve the plight of all businesses. In particular, small businesses were seen to be facing problems in meeting the challenges of survival and growth created by the very high inflation rates of the time. Difficulties lay in the area of retaining cash for development, and through a loss of incentive caused by certain taxation provisions. Consequently, the Government introduced a series of measures: The 40 per cent investment allowance; trading stock valuation adjustments; and change in Division 7 taxation permitting an increase from 50 per cent to 60 per cent in the amount of profits which private companies can retain without incurring undistributed profits tax.

Income tax changes through indexation in last year’s Budget, and the restructuring of personal tax rates announced in this year’s Budget, to take effect from 1 February 1978, will be of considerable benefit to the vast majority of small business owners since small businesses are predominantly unincorporated. Seventy-five per cent of all small businesses are sole proprietorships and partnerships and the proportion of unincorporated retailers is as high as 88 per cent of all retail businesses. In formulating its policy on small business the Government immediately recognised that both the Commonwealth and the State governments had responsibility in this field.

Soon after taking office I initiated discussions with State Ministers responsible for industrial development on a program aimed at assisting small firms through greater co-operation and rationalisation of services. The elements of the agreed program cover counselling, management training, information services, research and improved availability of finance. In line with this program most State governments have now taken initiatives and introduced specialised counselling agencies or staff to assist small enterprises in their States, to be carried on at the grass roots’ level, where close contact could be created and maintained.

The Australia-wide need for a lift in the standard of education in the principles and practice of small business operators became an immediate objective for the Government. I will detail later in this statement the publications, the training and research programs which have already added considerably to the store of knowledge available to the small businessman, and which are being further developed and expanded.

Early this year the Government detected a growing concern in the business community that funds flowing from the financing organisations appeared inadequate for the growth and development of small business. So in May, the Government appointed the task force to report on the availability of finance for small business and having studied its report the Government has decided to immediately take the following steps: We will introduce legislation to extend the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank to enable it to lend to all kinds of businesses. This will remove the present restrictions which confine its lending to the rural, tourism and industrial sectors.

We have decided also that the Commonwealth Development Bank will be enabled to provide equity finance to small businesses. In addition, the Government has decided that the activities of the Australian Industry Development Corporation in respect of small business will be extended, possibly by way of forming joint ventures with State and private sector institutions for the provision of finance to small businesses. We shall be considering ways in which these objectives might most efficiently be met as quickly as practicable, recognising at all times the importance of the role played by the trading banks in the financing of small business enterprise and the need to develop our policies in consultation with the banks.

The Reserve Bank has been advised that it is the Government’s policy that adequate finance should be made available to small business and that no arbitrary limits should be placed on such finance. It has been asked to inform the major groups of financial institutions that lending criteria should be reviewed in the light of the Government’s policy and to approach finance industry groups with a view to achieving better communications within their respective areas, aimed at improving the finance facilities available to small businesses. In this regard we are giving further consideration to such matters as the criteria for farm development loans and term loans, our general aim being to ensure that policies in the monetary and banking areas do not place unnecessary inhibitions on the advancement of small business.

The Government will be implementing also a number of measures through the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Bureau of Industry Economics designed to improve the availability of information about small businesses, their problems and finances. In the longer view this is likely to make a substantial contribution in terms of improving the quality of information available to government- and others- in making decisions in this area.

The Department of Industry and Commerce will continue to monitor closely and to report in consultation with other involved departments periodically to Ministers on existing Commonwealth, State and joint programs designed to improve the management and financial skills of small businesses and to increase the information and advice to small business on raising finance.

The Government also will be taking other initiatives within its own areas of responsibility to ensure that all elements in the Commonwealth Government machinery are fully aware of small business requirements and that the possible impact of various government measures upon the small business community is taken into account. In particular it will be monitoring proposals for Commonwealth or joint CommonwealthState legislation with a view to avoiding any unintended and undesirable effects on small businesses.

Small business has benefited from the Government’s policy announced in October 1976 regarding the purchase of locally made goods. The Government has now decided to strengthen the mechanisms for implementing its purchasing policy and will be consulting the States to ensure they and local governments are aware of the Government’s policy. All Government Ministers have been asked to ensure that their departments take action to pay all accounts promptly; the Government is aware of difficulties which can be created for small business if delays occur in the payment of Commonwealth accounts.

The Commonwealth already provides support facilities and co-ordination where a recognised need exists. For example, a support program of’ short practical publications oriented specifically to the small business owner-manager has been initiated by the Department of Industry and Commerce and at this stage there are 12 such publications available with a further eight being planned for this financial year. These booklets have been very well received by the small business community, so much so that some titles are having to be reprinted within months of being released.

The publications are arranged in a series entitled ‘Managing the Small Business’. The individual publications so far available are:

Checklist for starting a business

Sources of finance for small business

Importing

Retailing

Marketing

Control records- retailing

Buying or selling a small business

Avoiding management pitfalls

Repair services

Marketing a new product

Planning for management succession

Building trades

This publications program is a good example of Commonwealth-States co-operation. Priorities for publications are agreed upon between the Commonwealth and the States. They are written and edited in consultation with the States, and the States assist in their distribution and promotion. There is no doubt that the development of this joint Commonwealth-State program of assistance to small business will result in improved effectiveness and greater benefit to small enterprises.

The Department of Industry and Commerce with the support of the National Training Council is commissioning experts in small business management to prepare training material to be used in training courses and seminars. With the establishment of the Bureau of Industry Economics, headed by Professor Brian Johns, an acknowledged authority on small business, research into longer run economic issues of relevance to the small business sector will be undertaken.

In addition to the specific measures I have outlined, the Government firmly believes that the best overall way of further assisting small business, which is very diversified with different needs and problems is for the Government to continue with its policy of reducing inflation and restoring economic growth on a sustainable basis. The effects of inflation upon small business are disastrous; directly or indirectly its effects are experienced in a lack of orders and demand for goods and services, in higher interest rates, in adding to the difficulty of planning and investing on a confident basis, in a worsening of cost structures and the financial position of firms and so on. Inflation shortens everyone’s time-horizons and destroys confidence.

The achievements of this Government in putting the economy on the road to economic recovery are thus highly relevant in this context. Small business is very much dependent on general economic growth and prosperity, and investment and consumption expenditure. As these continue to improve, the Government believes some of the problems of particular concern to small businesses at the moment will be overcome. I present the following paper:

Small Business Finance- Ministerial Statement, 13 October 1977

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

For some time the Opposition has been raising in this Parliament and throughout Australia questions concerning the problems of small businesses and calling for action on the part of the Government. Whether the action now contemplated will actually relieve the crisis situation facing small businesses remains to be seen. I sincerely hope that it does because small businesses, especially small partnerships or small family business concerns, have been in a very bad way in the last couple of years.

The plight of small business is very serious. It has been widely reported that an average of 230 small businesses have been failing weekly. The principal reason for these failures has been the inability of small business to gain access to finance at other than exorbitant rates of interest. When I last raised this matter in the Parliament as recently as 6 October by way of question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) the Minister said- this is reported at page 1 143 of Senate Hansard- amongst other things:

Small businesses claimed to have great difficulty in getting finance from the banks. When the banks are asked questions about this- and they have been- they deny that this is the fact. They say it is not true. They produce evidence to prove that it is not true.

Therefore, despite the new financial arrangements that are being contemplated in this statement, it would appear that the banks- and this is from the Minister himself- have been denying . the fact that small businesses have been deprived of reasonable lending rates. It is worthwhile repeating, to indicate the seriousness of the situation, the figures that are mentioned on page 2 of the Minister’s statement. He said:

  1. . excluding primary production, some 350,000 enterprises are small businesses- over 90 per cent of the total of all business- and employ about 30 per cent of the labour force, around two million people.

As I mentioned last Friday when I spoke at a meeting in Young in the west of New South Wales, among the great problems that have been facing rural towns and regional areas of Australia is, on the one hand, the depressed state of primary industry and, on the other hand, the serious economic plight of small businessmen who have been leaving the farms and going into the towns to get employment. They have found that the small businessman has been squeezed and that small business operations have been drying up, and great economic hardship has been brought about due to lack of employment opportunity in the towns. This has been allowed to continue in the couple of years since the Government has been in office.

Only last week I raised at Question Time the fact that some small businesses have had to pay interest rates up to 70 per cent higher than those applying in the banking sector in order to obtain equity capital. I suggested that the Commonwealth Development Bank should provide equity finance to small businesses and that the charter of that Bank should be altered so that it could lend to all types of businesses. That step should go a long way towards ameliorating some of the conditions complained of and some of the conditions that have beset the operators of small businesses over the past few years.

What concerns me is the length of time that the Government has taken to introduce these measures. With an estimated 12,000 small businesses failing each year, one must ask: How many more are likely to fail before these new measures are implemented? I suggest that the Government has been somewhat tardy in developing these proposals of assistance for small business, especially the provision of small business finance. Criticism has to be offered of the Government on that score. The Government has now apparently advised the Reserve Bank that adequate finance should be made available to small businesses. Whether the Reserve Bank was one of the banks about which the Minister spoke on 6 October, I do not know. He just used banks in the collective form when he said:

When the banks are asked questions about this- and they have been- they deny that this is the Tact.

They say it is not true. They produce evidence to prove that it is not true.

Only now has the Government stressed that no arbitrary limits should be placed on the provision of such finance. That seems rather strange having regard to the Government’s strict financial target for the current year. After this Government has been in office for two years, the financial institutions at long last are apparently being asked to review their lending criteria. The Government claims that its investment allowance has successfully aided small businesses. However, the Opposition still awaits evidence that that in fact is the case. For advantage to be taken of the investment allowance capital is required by the investor and, as the statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce acknowledges, capital has not been available to those in the small business sector.

Notwithstanding its measures on making finance more readily available for small businesses, the Government has not dealt with a number of the areas that those who represent small businesses have been vigorously campaigning for in recent months. I mention by way of reminder the question of the taxation measures to which Senator Georges referred by way of interjection when the Minister was making his statement, the question of the cost of workers compensation premiums having to be met by small business operators and, of course, the hardy perennial of payroll taxes. The other major factor which has contributed to the plight of small businesses is the lack of demand for their product. The Government’s failure to provide stimulatory measures to the economy is, I suggest, largely responsible for that problem. If the Government is to do anything to seek to assist small businesses it has to see that demand is created for the product. I suggest that the Government should be taking steps to stimulate the economy through more direct government spending in that regard. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1376

UNITED NATIONS SUGAR CONFERENCE 1977

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- Honourable senators will be aware that the prime purpose of the recent overseas visit by the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Overseas Trade and Minister for National Resources (Mr Anthony) was to lead the Australian delegation to the United Nations Sugar Conference in Geneva, the object of which was to conclude the negotiation, commenced earlier this year, of a new International Sugar Agreement. There has been no international regulation of the world sugar market since 1973 when the last Agreement negotiated in 1968 expired. Negotiations in that year to conclude a new International Sugar Agreement were unsuccessful. I am pleased to be able to inform the Senate that, although the negotiations were most difficult and complex, the Geneva conference late last week finalised a new International Sugar Agreement. Without any doubt this new Agreement contains the most sophisticated market regulatory mechanisms yet written into an international commodity agreement. The Agreement will now be considered by governments of all sugar exporter and importer countries, including the Australian Government. Provided a sufficient number of importers and exporters accede to it, the Agreement will come into effect from 1 January 1978 for five years.

The conference was conducted under the auspices of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and was the first negotiation under the UNCTAD integrated commodities program. It was attended by representatives of more than 70 countries, covering virtually all of the world’s producers and consumers of sugar. Sugar was the first commodity to be negotiated under the integrated commodities program and the negotiations therefore had an international importance much greater than previous negotiations. If an agreement could not be concluded on sugar- a commodity which had previously been managed under an agreementthen the chances of negotiating other commodity agreements would be very much reduced. It is becoming increasingly understood and accepted that the world has much to gain by co-operative production and market management of food and raw materials. The Australian Government has long accepted this principle and has worked strenuously to achieve this objective. With sugar we have been involved in international discussions, negotiations and agreements for nearly 50 years and this, coupled with our long involvement and experience in international commodity negotiations, has given us an expertise that has been of immense value to the sugar world and to UNCTAD in the recent negotiations in formulating effective mechanisms to bring about greater market stability.

The major exporters involved in the conference included Australia, Brazil, Cuba, the Philippines and Thailand. The major importers included the United States, Japan, Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The European Economic Community, although represented, did not play a prominent part in the negotiations because it did not receive a mandate to do so until the eleventh hour of the conference. It has been left to the EEC to negotiate its terms of accession after the Agreement nas entered into force. The negotiations were conducted against the background of a heavy world sugar surplus and falling world prices. From a peak of about

US64c per pound or over $ A 1,000 per tonne in November 1974, the world price had fallen by September of this year to 6.7c or SA132 per tonne and there was the almost certain prospect that, in the absence of an agreement, the price would fall to 4c or 5c per pound or between $A80 and SA100 per tonne. The Agreement establishes a price range of US 1 lc to US21c per pound- equivalent to $ A2 1 7 to $A4 1 4 per tonne. Provision is made for review of the price range and upward adjustment when this is considered appropriate. This price range will be defended by a combination of global export quotas and stockholding provisions. Quotas and stockholding will operate when prices are low, and quotas will be suspended and stocks released as prices rise towards the maximum. When- with the operation of the mechanisms of the Agreementthe minimum price level of 1 lc is achieved, it will result in a lift in the returns of the world sugar industry of the order of $A2,000m. This is a benefit in which Australia, one of the major sugar producers, will share.

The sugar industry is of vital importance to Australia, particularly to the people in the towns strung along 1,000 miles of the Queensland coastline and the North Coast of New South Wales. The welfare of whole communities depends on the well-being of the world sugar industry. Cane sugar is Queensland’s most significant crop, both in terms of large scale production and value. It also contributes substantially to Australia’s earnings of foreign exchange. In the 10 years between 1966-67 and 1976-77 the value of exports of raw sugar rose from $A100m to $A630m. In 1976-77 this represented 12.4 per cent of the value of Australia’s exports of rural origin and 5.5 per cent of the total exports. Over the years our industry has developed to place Australia among the three largest exporters of sugar to the free market. Through research and the application of modern technology we have become one of the most- if not the most- efficient producers in the world. Our industry is based on individuality, with individual producers owning and operating their own farms and the mills operating as public companies or producer co-operatives.

Under the new Agreement, Australia has been allotted a basic export tonnage of 2.35 million tonnes. All basic export tonnages will be reviewed after the first two years of the operation of the Agreement. To achieve the desired price effect, basic export tonnages of all exporters may be subject to an initial quota cut of 15 per cent as from 1 January 1978. Unless the International Sugar Council decides to the contrary, there could also be an additional cut of Vh per cent. However, specifically to ensure that Australian mill peaks are in no way breached, a special provision was negotiated whereby Australia has the option of accepting the additional cut of 2lA per cent or restricting its quota cut to 1 5 per cent and foregoing immediate shortfalls and quota increases until any benefits derived from the provision have been repaid. It was particularly important for Australia to ensure that mill peaks were protected. Each farmer and miller in Australia has a minimum production entitlement or ‘peak’. Mill peaks have never been breached in the 48 years this system had been in existence. They are a legal entitlement reinforced by precedent. Some mills in Australia accept production over and above their peaks. Such additional production is not covered by our entitlements under the Agreement, but producers can be assured that, as a result of these negotiations, their minimum production entitlement has been protected and can be maintained.

Exporters will be required to hold reserve stocks totalling 2.5 million tonnes- their individual shares of which would represent about 15 per cent of their basic export tonnages. Such stocks are to be accumulated at the rate of 40 per cent, 40 per cent, and 20 per cent in the first, second and third years respectively. Stocks are to be released at the upper end of the range in three equal tranches at the prices of 19c, 20c and 21c respectively. The cost of storing reserve stocks will be very substantially assisted by a stock-financing fund which is to be established under the control of the International Sugar Council. The income of this fund is to be derived by a levy on all sugar traded by members of the Agreement in the free market. This concept is a unique feature. It represents a breakthrough not only for sugar but also for many other commodities. It means that the cost of stockholding will be shared more equitably between exporters and importers. The fund will help the Australian industry with the cost of holding its share of the reserve stocks under the Agreement. Traditionally in international commodity agreements it has fallen to the exporters alone to finance the accumulation and holding of stocks. Australia has consistently held the view that, as both exporters and importers derive benefits from the market and price stability which one can expect to flow from such agreements, both should be expected and prepared to contribute to the costs of stockholding. In the context of sugar, that principle has now been accepted. We will be looking to importing countries to apply the same principle in respect of other commodity agreements involving stockholding.

These, then, are the direct benefits to Australia that will flow from the new Agreement: Closely regulated and stabilised world sugar market with a price uplift to 11c to 21c which, at the minimum, will lift world sugar returns by the order of $A2 ,000m; breakthrough in a new stocksfinance concept. But there are many other benefits. The new ISA will also place Australia’s long-term sugar contracts within the framework of internationally-negotiated price objectives. The resultant price stability will reduce the pressures on contracts following the recent collapse in world sugar prices. The 1 lc to 21c prices range objective, which has been accepted by a conference involving all of the countries with which Australia has long-term sugar contracts, is compatible with the price provisions written into those contracts. Furthermore, the United States of America, the world’s largest free market importer of sugar, has indicated its intention of joining this Agreement. This has been our hope for decades. It will greatly strengthen the Agreement. It will also help enable the United States Administration to avoid the inevitable harsh alternative of tariff or quota action. Such action would not only be most detrimental to world trade in sugar. It would also give a greater competitive edge to the development of sugar substitutes. And it would come at a time when the world is looking to major industrialised countries, like the United States, to liberalise trade in the context of the multilateral trade negotiations under way in Geneva.

Furthermore, the European Economic Community, the world’s largest producer of sugar, is now seriously considering negotiating to jim the new International Sugar Agreement. The effective participation of the EEC in the Agreement would be of immense value in further broadening the regulation of the world sugar market. To date the EEC has been unwilling to contemplate any meaningful disciplines at all on exports to help regulate the world sugar market. It is now willing to contemplate such disciplines. Again, this is not only of significance to sugar, but also hopeful in the context of discussions and negotiations going on in respect of other agricultural commodities. As one of the largest exporters of sugar in the world, Australia played a leading role in the Geneva Conference in enabling a successful International Sugar Agreement to be achieved in what was a most complex, protracted and difficult negotiation. A highly competent delegation, representing both the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments and the

Australian sugar industry, worked tirelessly towards reaching a successful agreement. Australia has every reason to be proud of the key role it played in bringing together the interests of exporters, importers, developed and developing countries, both non-socialist and socialist, and in helping to enable the negotiation of the most sophisticated market regulatory mechanisms yet written into an international commodity agreement.

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

– by leave- Briefly, the Opposition welcomes the statement by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton). All of us who have had any involvement in international commodity agreements in the past in the area of foods and raw materials know just how difficult it is to get nations to agree on ways and means of stabilising prices and markets. Having been through this exercise myself on more than one occasion, I can understand the difficulties the negotiators from all the countries involved had in trying to reach the agreement spelt out in the Minister’s statement. For that reason we commend the efforts of those concerned, including the Minister and his officers who took part in the discussions. Of course we realise that even though it is an improvement on the last sugar agreement that expired in 1 973 it is not an all-embracing solution for a number of reasons. First, the sugar that is marketed on what we call the free market is only a small proportion, about a quarter, of the total world trade in sugar.

No matter how good the intentions or goodwill of the parties to the International Sugar Agreement, there is a risk that other factors at work could eventually seek to undermine it. Even within the group of nations- about 70 are involved- that presumably will ratify this Agreement are several nations which would not be as enthusiastic as others to see that the Agreement was observed over the full five-year period. I refer specifically to the traditional attitude of the European Economic Community. With its common agricultural policy, it has been a thorn in the side of many of the efforts that have been made around the world in recent years to reach agreements and to break down the trade barriers which exist and which so many more forwardlooking countries, particularly the United States of America, wish to see broken down. The fact that the Americans are much more amenable to this Agreement than they have been to other agreements in the past is itself a very hopeful sign. In making my passing criticism of the EEC, I do not overlook the fact, as I have said for many years, that if in fact the Treaty of Rome has given Europe a degree of security and prosperity over the last 20 years which it did not have before then good luck to it. Europe is entitled to it, seeing that it has been wracked by wars every generation for so long. But I believe that is no reason why it should establish itself now within the community of nations as a group which is not prepared to recognise the overwhelming need to l iberalise trade throughout the world as much as we possibly can and to reach the type of agreement we are debating. Of course we assume that the Australian Government will ratify this Agreement and that the other nations involved will do likewise.

A measure of sacrifice will be required of the sugar industry, specifically the cane growers of Queensland, especially in the Mackay area, who at least initially stand to experience a probable loss of income and quotas under this Agreement. I am sure that they also could be persuaded that it is in the long-term interests that this Agreement be entered into because the long term stability of their industry is obviously much more important than any short-term advantage they may receive in the absence of an agreement of this nature. The Opposition supports and applauds the efforts that have been made so far to reach this Agreement.

page 1379

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Report

Debate resumed from 6 October on motion by Senator Jessop:

That the Senate take note of the report

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I seem to be doomed to sudden speeches on this subject. It will be recalled that I rose in the debate last Thursday evening for. the purpose of seeking leave to continue my remarks later to allow the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) to make a ministerial statement. The Senate promptly moved on to the next item of business and I found myself endeavouring to make a speech on a subject that I knew less about than I know about air pollution. Now that I am on my feet I should like to make just a few constructive comments concerning the review of the report of the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution which we are debating. May I say how pleased I am, and many of my colleagues share this view, that the committees of the Senate are looking at past reports which have been presented to the Senate to see whether the recommendations contained in those reports have been acted upon. It is of tremendous importance, especially in an area which concerns our environment- in this case the area of air pollution- that we monitor the situation year by year. We are not doing quite that at the present time, but with a problem that is still on the increase, a problem that we have not brought under control, it is necessary that the Senate should be kept well informed. This report brings us up to date, and I commend the recommendations contained in it to all honourable senators, having in mind that the purpose of our committees is not only to investigate a problem and make recommendations but also to keep the Senate well informed. That leads to better and more constructive debate.

Air pollution is of concern to all thinking people hi the community. In the major cities on our eastern coast the problem of air pollution is on the increase. As we develop our freeways, the more dependence we place upon the use of the motor vehicle and not on public transport the more we will have to face up to the problem of the pollution of our atmosphere by hydrocarbons and emissions from motor vehicles. The original Senate select committee which investigated air pollution found the motor vehicle to be the main contributor to air pollution. Exhaust emissions were such that they were giving cause for grave concern in the centre of both Sydney and Melbourne. As a result of that report, many steps have been taken to control emissions from car exhausts. Of course, those steps have added to the cost of vehicles, and recently we have heard comments from car manufacturers and certain sections of the motor vehicle industry that the high cost of those controls, added to the cost of the vehicle, should be taken into consideration. Perhaps we should be able to put up with a certain level of pollution and keep down the cost of cars. The question has also been asked: Why should we impose upon the outback dweller an added cost for his car when he does not have to face the problem of air pollution? Why should he have to pay an added cost for his vehicle in order to correct a problem which is essentially a city problem? That might be able to be corrected in some way, I am not certain, but I would hesitate to accept such a proposition if it means that the standards that we are beginning to demand in the cities have to be relaxed.

The problem in certain areas appears to be one of a relaxation of effort in the control of pollution, both of the air and of water. I believe that a subsequent report of this Committee will deal with the question of water pollution. There is a great need to adjust the community’s thinking, so that people will consider reducing the impact of pollution upon the environment and upon our quality of life. I believe for two reasons that it is necessary to change people ‘s attitudes in order to reduce the wastage of energy: Firstly, such a change would in many ways reduce the problem of air pollution; secondly, it would also conserve our rapidly reducing sources of energy. It is for that reason that I believe this debate cannot be separated from the debate which follows. I think the next matter to be dealt with this afternoon as part of General Business is the report on solar energy. It is my view that if we accelerate research into solar energy, if we facilitate and expedite the use of solar energy devices, we will also reduce considerably the problem of air pollution.

In conclusion, I wish to commend the Committee for its report. I notice that the Committee consisted of Senator Jessop, as Chairman, Senator Mulvihill, Senator Bonner, Senator Melzer, Senator Townley and Senator Colston. The secretariat consisted of the secretary, Mr Dawe, and the research officers, Miss H. Church and Mr A. C. Snedden. It would be remiss of the Senate not to put on record its appreciation of the work done by the Committee members and the support given by the staff.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1380

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL RESOURCES

Report

Debate resumed from 4 May, on motion by Senator Thomas:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I wish to continue my remarks, which I commenced on 4 May, when the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources dealing with its reference on solar energy was tabled in the Parliament. I hope that the Government has not placed a wrong emphasis on one of the recommendations in the report because that would appear to be the case when one looks at this year’s Budget. One of the recommendations which the Committee made, and I spoke about this in my short remarks on 4 May, was that no separate action should be taken to increase the level of funding or accelerate the development of solar energy until an overall energy policy had been established. I wish to emphasise that particular recommendation. As I said before, I hope that the Government has not misinterpreted that recommendation because the Committee during its hearings was able to ascertain that there is a great need for the development in Australia of solar energy. We are concerned that no great effort has been made by the Government to appropriate funds to carry out further exploration. The recommendation states that the Committee agrees that no separate action should be taken for funding research into solar energy until an overall energy policy has been established. As far as I am aware, that policy has not yet been established and we hope that it will not be too long before it is established. At page 24 of its policy statement on minerals and energy on 28 November 1975, under the heading ‘Solar Energy’ the Government had this to say:

Solar energy is the major alternative source of energy available to us.

Solar energy research will receive a high priority in our energy program.

We will encourage the manufacture and installation of cheap and readily available solar units for hot water and domestic and office heating and cooling.

The Liberal and National Country Parties will place a high priority on research into the development of solar energy units for industrial applications.

As yet, we have not seen that part of the minerals and energy policy of the present Government put into effect. I am sure that all members of the Senate hope that in view of the emphasis that is now being placed upon the failing energy resources of this country, the Government will soon move into this field and make money available for solar energy research such as was spelt out in the policy statement on 28 November 1 975.

The Committee, in its investigations, had proved to it that there is a great future for solar energy in this country, so much so that I, as a member of the Committee, was convinced that I would be able to save money and have a ready supply of hot water if I installed a domestic solar energy appliance. This I did, and I might say that I am getting wonderful results. As soon as the sun starts to shine, even in the middle of winter, the little pump on the unit I have starts to circulate hot water down into the storage cylinder. Although on that unit we have what is known as a circulator pump which cuts in at a certain temperature, we also have an electrical booster unit in the storage cylinder which can be switched on manually if there is no sun. Of course our bill for electricity has dropped dramatically and we have an ample supply of hot water.

Various people who gave evidence to the Committee made submissions to the effect that they were concerned that there was not a special low tariff for people who installed solar energy units; something equivalent to what we have in South Australia- the ‘J’ tariff. This provides that if a person’s hot water cylinder is working at night there is a special low tariff. But the experts we had before the Committee were able to prove to us that a device such as that would be of no use at all to people who had solar energy appliances because the water would be heated at night at a low tariff and if the next day was a sunny day the solar unit would be operating and the water would be wasted. The Committee found that the best method would be to have a manual switch which a person used only when it was necessary to heat the water. At any other time of the day, of course, the water is automatically heated.

Some other recommendations were made by the Committee. I should like to ask whether the Government has taken any action on them. One of the Committee recommendations was that: the Commonwealth and State Governments establish a common approach for determining electricity tariffs for domestic solar hot water installations. It is suggested that rates applicable to solar water heaters be set after a study is made of the likely impact of solar hot water services on existing rate structures of the State electricity authorities.

I am not aware whether the Commonwealth and State governments have had any discussions on that recommendation of the Committee. I should like the Minister for Science, Senator Webster, to give the Senate an answer some time as to whether that particular recommendation has been acted upon and whether consultations have taken place with the various State bodies. One of the other recommendations of the Committee was that:

  1. . it is necessary to maintain a group of scientists and technologists in Australia working on solar energy projects and that there is an associated need for the involvement of industry to develop concepts into practical industrial applications.

I am led to believe that because of lack of funding by the Australian government, Australia has lost persons of very high expertise to America. It is no wonder that this has happened when we consider the statement made by Senator Webster in answer to a question in this Parliament some weeks ago. Senator Webster said that America was spending $240m this year on solar energy research. Of course if we do not have the funds here to retain the expertise which has been so evident in this country, it is only natural that those people will go to a country like America where ample funds are available so that they can expand their knowledge in the development of solar energy.

During the course of the Committee’s inquiry it received 120 submissions. Forty-one organisations represented by 77 persons and five individuals gave evidence during the 12 days of public hearings. The Committee itself undertook 13 inspections of solar applications and test facilities. I am sure that all members of the Committee learned a lot from the places we were able to visit and the work we were able to witness being carried out by the various research organisations.

I am concerned that Senator Webster, as the Minister for Science, is not fully aware of what money is being expended in these various organisations. I have had a look through some of the answers he has given to various questions in the Parliament. Each one is at variance with the other regarding the actual amounts of money being expended on solar energy research in Australia. On 15 February, as recorded at page 7 of the Senate Hansard, Senator Webster, in answer to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wriedt, said:

The honourable senator may recognise that the expenditure of the Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation during this year is in excess of $750,000.

Then on 9 March, as recorded at page 12 of the Senate Hansard, in answer to a question by Senator Keeffe, Senator Webster said:

I believe about $1.5m is spent in Australia each year at present on solar energy research.

There we have the Minister for Science believing that that much money is expended on solar energy research. It is a considerable amount more- as a matter of fact it is nearly doublethan the amount given in his answer on 15 February. But on 15 March, as recorded at page 1 17 of the Senate Hansard, in answer to a supplementary question by Senator Keeffe, Senator Webster said:

My understanding of his earlier question was that it related to just solar energy research and it elicited from me the comment that in the vicinity of $1.5m had been spent. I will attempt to verify that figure for him. The figure which came to my mind when he asked the question without notice was that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in this current year is expending on solar energy research and on areas associated with solar energy about$ 1.27m.

So there we have a different figure again. Senator Webster has come down quite considerably from the $1.5m. Again, in the Senate Hansard of 24 March, as recorded at page 474, Senator Webster said in answer to a question from Senator Rae:

For instance, indication was given that in this year some $862,300 would be spent by CSIRO in a variety of ways. The Australian Research Grants Committee has approved grants this year for various items such as selective surfaces as solar energy absorbers, photo-voltaic and thermo-electric conversion of solar energy to electricity, solar energy concentrators, solar energy systems evaluation, and heat and mass transfer theory applied to solar air conditioning.

So on each occasion Senator Webster gave a different answer. I should like to ask the Minister for Science whether he would be prepared at an early date to put down a paper in the Senate detailing the actual expenditure on solar energy by departments under his control and the actual projects they have in hand so that we may get a true figure of what this present Government is contributing towards research on solar energy and some indication of the type of projects that are being carried out.

I am very pleased that during the course of our inspections we were able to ascertain that the Australian National Railways is going to use solar energy for recharging the batteries which operate the signalling system on the TarcoolaAlice Springs railway line. I understand that that is going to be very successful and has made available substantial funds to private enterprise which will develop these appliances, so that very little maintenance will have to be done. One will not have to go out to refuel diesel engines every three months, or whatever the period is, because the sun will in the meantime have generated power to recharge the batteries.

Senator Jessop:

– They use them on buoys too, do they not?

Senator McLAREN:

– They use them on buoys and I understand, Senator Jessop, that a lot of the wealthy boat owners use them also. People who are able to afford pleasure boats have installed the appliances on the roofs of their cabin cruisers so that, if they can afford to spend the whole weekend going from Port Lincoln over to Kangaroo Island, or touring around in Port Phillip Bay or on Sydney Harbour, when they come to their yachts the batteries will be charged, rather than flat. There would not be any working people, I am sure, with their low wage levels, who would be able to take advantage of these appliances, but at least the wealthy section, which sometimes I refer to as the silvertail element of the community, can in fact use them.

Senator Keeffe:

– Or the Liberal Party.

Senator McLAREN:

-I think most of the people we refer to as silvertails are in fact members of the Liberal Party anyway; certainly they are not members of the Labor Party. Such people are able to take advantage of these developments in solar energy production. It is probably of no great assistance to the manufacturers of batteries, because a battery lasts a lot longer when one is able to keep it fully charged.

I would hope that, with those remarks that I have made and the questions that I have asked, Senator Webster will be able to come into the chamber and perhaps, if someone asks him one of the usual Dorothy Dix questions he will be able to give us the real details on the amount that this Government is allocating to solar energy research and the works program that it has put in train, so that solar energy can be used to a greater extent in this country.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– First, in reply to the main point that Senator McLaren made, on the answers that Senator Webster has given to the series of questions by the Labor Opposition on solar energy expenditure, I would note that it is extremely difficult to answer a series of questions that have a dissimilar base; indeed, Senator McLaren gave a demonstration of that fact. In the first instance, he wanted to know how much the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is expending. That answer was given by the Minister. Then he asked how much was being spent in Australia generally on solar energy research, which is a totally different question. Lastly, he asked how much the Government was spending on solar energy research, which is another facet and requires another answer. I suggest that once the Labor Party makes up its mind what questions it wants answered, those answers will be forthcoming, in the way they desire. I would like to deal specifically with the report.

Senator Keeffe:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I understand that Senator Thomas spoke earlier in the debate and will, if he continues to speak, close the debate although there are two more senators yet to speak.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– In the first instance I merely brought down the report.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Did you speak to it then?

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I read only the tabling documents.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I uphold the point of order. Senator Thomas made the motion and would, if he spoke now, close the debate.

Senator Georges:

– To facilitate Senator Thomas’s participation, which is perhaps a rather odd way of putting it, could we not change the order of speaking?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- That is what I was going to suggest. I shall call Senator Jessop now, and Senator Thomas may speak later.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

- Mr Deputy President, I should like, first of all, to pay tribute to the Committee that worked in the Senate to present this report and, as well, to the staff that is always with us and without whose help, of course, the production of such reports would be impossible. The report has, I think, one major thrust: to draw to the attention of the Government the need to establish an energy policy, something that I do not think we have come to grips with yet. The Committee directed attention to the need to establish an Australian energy commission. In that sort of environment, the question of solar energy ought to be considered but I become very concerned when I read certain predictions as to what is going to happen by the year 1990.

Only yesterday, according to a report in the Australian on an address to the Australian Institute of Management, I think in Canberra, Professor Watson-Munro posed the question quite dramatically. The heading was ‘Disaster by 1990: Staggering Oil Crisis Predicted’. He suggests that petrol will be rationed by that time and that the price per gallon will rise to between $3 and $4; that cars will be smaller and lighter; that public transport will be overcrowded; that private cars will be barred from the centre of our cities; and that it will be illegal for industry to use oil where coal and solar power could be used. I must say that scientists sometimes get a little bit carried away with their prophecies in these areas and that sometimes I find it difficult to believe that this will happen; nevertheless there are so many people in Australia, and in the world, who share this concern that I think the Government must take serious note of it and move rapidly towards establishing an energy policy.

Professor Watson-Munro, who is well-known and is a professor of plasma physics at Sydney University, suggests also that by the year 1990 private individuals and industry would be faced with spending up to $ 1,000m annually on solar energy collectors; further, that expenditure to the tune of $6,000m would be required for a plant to produce oil from coal, and $3,000m for equipment to produce oil from vegetation. These figures are quite suggestive and highlight the urgency of the problem that the world and Australia in particular, is facing. I heard this morning- I believe on AM- that the Minister concerned with energy production in New Zealand had just returned from a conference on energy matters and supported this contention.

The report itself tends to suggest that governments ought to be doing more to encourage people to install solar units for low temperature purposes in their homes, and I would support that completely. In South Australia we have had a state of affairs where the Electricity Trust has virtually encouraged people to squander energy, penalising those who were prepared to install solar heaters in their homes by denying them the benefits of the low J tariff rating. That is a crazy situation and, thankfully, there has been a change of attitude in that area; incentives are being offered to people to introduce solar units in their homes, indeed to industry as well.

I was very grateful to Senator Thomas for inviting my Committee, the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment, to accompany him on a visit to the Queanbeyan premises of Coca Cola. A low temperature solar energy unit has been installed at the plant to heat cans to 9 degrees celcius to prevent condensation. That unit was installed with the cooperation of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, at a cost of, from memory, $40,000 or $50,000. This means that in that small factory we will see a saving of oil which otherwise would be used for heating purposes.

I have some concern about energy in Australia. I believe that the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment does not go far enough in emphasising the need for more intensified research in this area. I have had a lot to do with scientists who are doing quite valuable work in solar energy but who are inhibited in that work because we are unable to provide sufficient funds to give this work the impetus that it truly deserves. I received a letter the other day from Professor Bockris who is well known in the area of solar energy research. He is a professor of chemistry at the Flinders University. In the letter, which is dated 28 September 1977, he makes certain points which I have transmitted to the Minister for National Resources, Mr Anthony, for his consideration and comment. In referring to solar energy, he expresses concern about the time factor. With respect to time aspects, he states:

This scares me. By 1982, Bass Strait will be falling away rapidly as far as its component of our own oil is concerned and we shall be going up towards the Japanese situation. They are on foreign oil and pay S2.S0 per gallon at the present time.

Consider what a difference it would make to Australian life if we had to pay $2.50 per gallon for petrol.

It is clear that the Government does not understand a very fundamental fact; the price of energy controls the economy. If the energy supply is cheap, the economy will go well. This simple statement- which is not the sort of thing which economists understand-is proven by looking at the graph between income and energy per head.

The Professor draws attention to the book that he wrote entitled Energy and suggests that that work ought to be referred to. Another heading he has included in the letter is “The most unfortunate Government report on solar energy’. I say that in all deference to my colleague, Senator Thomas. I do not subscribe necessarily to everything that the professor says. But the letter tends to emphasise the concern in the community at the present time. Apparently, the professor has written a review of the report and no doubt the comments that he makes will be duly considered by the people concerned.

Certainly, we must move to a stage where we become increasingly more conscious of conservation of energy. I remember when my father was alive- I think I have mentioned this incident before- one of the habits he had was to go around turning off lights to save energy, not from the point of view of conservation. In those days, it was a question of economics. My father just could not afford to pay the power bill. These days, we seem to be more affluent and because of that we are far more careless. A national advertising campaign ought to be conducted to encourage children, through the schools and in the family home itself, to turn the lights off.

Senator Missen:

– Turn off the lights.

Senator JESSOP:

-I did not want to use that expression. I regret very much that my colleague intervened at that stage. I would like to make another point in regard to energy conservation. We are refining our crude oil in Australia up to a point. But it concerns me that between 1,000,000 tonnes and 1,500,000 tonnes of Australian crude oil each year is not properly utilised simply because we have not developed the technology of catalytic cracking. If that technology were employed in Australia, we would be able to utilise that energy source in lighter fuels and allow our Australian crudes to go a lot further. We could still import oil from overseas. If necessary, this energy could be stored in caverns similar to what is occurring in South Africa and the United States of America.

The situation alarms me. I recognise the expense involved in changing the technology to this form of cracking the oil. I imagine that it would take three or four years to achieve this. But the fundamental point at present is that the oil is being used for heavy industrial purposes when it ought to be used for motor vehicles. It occurs to me that the Government ought to be looking very carefully at that and encouraging industry to move into this new area of technology. I understand that the price recommended for Australian oil by the Prices Justification Tribunal is about $72 a tonne. It is being sold at $35 a tonne. In my view, the use of oil in such a way represents an utter waste. That is an area I would like the Government to examine critically with the object of ensuring that we undertake more research into oil cracking technology in Australia so that we can fully utilise the indigenous crude oil that we have.

I think it was Senator Hall who during Question Time this morning asked about the encouragement of further oil exploration. I made a submission to the Minister for National Resources, Mr Anthony, containing suggestions about how smaller companies ought to be encouraged to provide us with a little more impetus in oil exploration in Australia. I have here three or four pages of suggestions that I believe ought to be given consideration by the Government. I have not shown them to Senator Keeffe but I would like to have them incorporated in the Hansard record.

Senator Keeffe:

– Do you have any shares in the companies concerned?

Senator JESSOP:

-No, none at all. In the interests of time, I seek leave to have this submission incorporated in Hansard.

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

The document read as follows-

SUBMISSION

ONSHORE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION ACTIVITY IN AUSTRALIA-JULY 1977

Onshore oil and gas exploration activity has been decreasing in activity since 1 97 1 -72.

The original decrease was due to economic downturn at about the time of the change of Government in 1972; however, the present lack of activity appears to be mainly due to the factors set out hereunder

Lack of risk capital due to the repeal of Section 77D of the Federal Income Tax Act in 1 974.

The upsurge in activity overseas required large commitments from international companies, and the oil price increase from the OPEC countries further drained available cash from the western bloc companies.

Present pricing uncertainty; although the Government has said that prices for new oil discoveries will be at world parity, there are a number of leases which should be further developed but there is apprehension that these areas may be classified as’ old price ‘ zone.

Lack of confidence as to future intervention if there is a change of Government.

The need to establish a long range policy, agreeable in principle to both political parties to embody the establishment of an Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Body, with statutory powers, to provide stable, continuing, long range guidelines to enable industry planning.

Stability of Australia as a ‘good risk’ investment country in view of industrial record.

Present pricing of natural gas is well below world parity and there is not the profit return expected for risk capital ventures, (e.g. Santos has still not paid a dividend from Moomba gas discovery).

Lack of available prospecting leases onshore, because the early comers have secured leases which they cannot or have not fully explored.

The following remedies are suggested to ease the present stagnation which is driving the onshore drillers away from Australia at an alarming rate.

Encourage Australian investors to subscribe capital for oil and gas exploration. This requires a section similar to the old 77 D, but with restrictions to prevent subscribed funds being used up for other than exploration. Dividends from shares on Australian natural resource companies could be tax free in the hands of the investor or alternatively a dividend tax credit to some major extent to encourage investment.

The new section 124 in division10aa of the Income Tax Assessment Act has opened up new avenues by allowing exploration expenditure to be offset against income of any type. To date, there does not appear to have been any move by the mineral or industrial companies into the oil or gas field. This may be due to the risk element or the absence of a new pricing policy which has been expected for some time.

Give consideration to a possible investment allowance such as the present 40 per cent allowance of capital expenditure on new equipment. The allowance may be in the form of a tax rebate which applies equally to profitable or non-profitable companies.

A policy to increase prices to world parity should be adopted as soon as practical. ‘Super Profits’ for established producers may be considered a problem in justifying an increase to the public; this could be obviated to a large extent by adopting the following course-

Payment of increased charges would only be paid to those companies prepared to re-invest into further exploration, or when utilised to create a reserve of imported oil purchased at ruling world parity and stored underground in natural or ‘man made’ caverns for later use. This method of creating a reserve at present world prices is actually operating in the United States now.

New oil prices should be determined on the individual merits of the oil field, taking in regard size of reserves, cost of development, including shipping or pipeline costs, reservoir characteristics, etc.

Improve. Australia’s reputation overseas as a trading partner and a reliable source.

Improve financial remuneration for expatriate personnel with oil field expertise with the reintroduction of the Visiting Industrial Expert (V.I.E.) tax relief benefit. At present expatriates are able to earn higher income in most foreign ‘ exploration areas than in Australia.

Publication of a National Energy Policy which the public has been expecting since early 1 976.

The following additional suggestions are offered for consideration:

The gas pipeline from Moomba to Sydney could be divested by the Federal Government by making the authority a private listed company. The share price would be determined at a price that would yield a better than average return to the investors. The success of selling the shares would be determined by:

Only a limited amount of shares would be available for allotment to ‘each ‘ individual.

Shares would be sold only to Australian nationals at the onset.

The Government ‘guarantees’ the dividend payments.

Shares to be sold through brokerage houses and/or banks.

As the income to the pipeline company can be guaranteed by tariff adjustments there is little risk to the Government.

This type of scheme was used to finance the Alberta Gas Truck Line Company in Canada and was most successful. Each resident had an opportunity to participate by subscribing for shares. Eventually each subscriber was allocated 20 shares at $5.50 per share. The investment to the shareholder has paid off handsomely.

If the pipeline divestiture mentioned above is successfully accomplished a national oil company could be structured along similar lines and formed to take interests in development projects and to some degree exploration.

The following statistics are taken from the 1976 A.P.E.A. Area Report and indicate the deteriorating position in oil and gas exploration: 1970-121 Wells were drilled 1976-21 Wells were drilled.

Senator JESSOP:

-The report states that solar energy ought to be considered in the general context of energy policy. That is perfectly true. But I share the concern of scientists and engineers in Australia that the Government is not paying sufficient attention to the development of solar energy. Certainly, we must keep the expertise in Australia. Senator McLaren mentioned this and so does the report of the Committee. But the scientists cannot be kept working in Australia effectively unless they are provided with the finance to keep them adequately employed. The inevitable result of inattention to that important fundamental aspect of research and development of this important area will mean a continuing brain drain to other countries.

Australia is very fortunate with respect to solar energy. There is only one other country that has more of this resource. Therefore, this puts us in a position to lead the world in this type of research.

I appreciate the importance of us attracting knowledge from overseas. I appreciate also the emphasis that the United States of America is placing on this area of technology. I think Senator McLaren stated that the United States was spending about $240m this financial year on research and development in this area. I believe that as this nation is so well endowed with this national resource, we ought to push the technology as far as we possibly can. There are other aspects of energy conservation to be considered. One is the American demand for the sun’s energy. I refer to an article that appeared in a journal put out by the Department of Overseas Trade. It refers to demand in America for solar energy equipment. The article was written by Mr S. J. Maliphant, Senior Trade Commissioner in San Francisco. He points to the tremendous trade opportunities for Australia to provide such equipment and to profit from the export of the equipment to countries like America.

Senator Missen:

-There is a good deal of private enterprise interest in solar energy there, too.

Senator JESSOP:

-Exactly. Senator Missen shares my view about the conservation of oil because he has been agitating for a long time on the question of re-refining oil, which is another important aspect of energy resources. Senator Missen was recently in America and he is probably well aware of the private industry effort in the field of solar energy. In respect of the Committee’s report, I pay a tribute to the Chairman and the staff who suported him. I commend him for the report. It has drawn together points which are quite fundamental and which must receive more active consideration by the present Government. Despite the somewhat critical remarks which I have made hopefully in a constructive way, I commend the report to the Senate.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-First of all, I want to make a couple of comments on the statements which Senator Jessop has made. I think it was probably a humourous interjection from Senator Missen but I suggest that not only has the Liberal Party not been able to generate the power to get Australia moving as it promised us in 1975 it would do because it cannot find the switch but also it has now pulled out the plug and we are sort of gradually sinking into a state of depression. This goes to proving the truth of two statements. One was the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) during his election campaign that the Liberal and Country parties would switch the lights back on. They did not come back on. The other was the statement that life was not meant to be easy. I think that highlights the fact that people in Australia now realise that life really was better with a Labor government.

The two statements that were made quite accidentally from that side of the chamber about switching off household lights, not political lights, would save this country something like 30 per cent in energy resources. Senator Jessop said that we ought to conduct an advertising campaign. The Party that he supports is in government. He should initiate the proposal within the forums of his Party because it would go a long way towards saving energy in this country. I could sympathise too with Senator Missen in his attempt to have sump oil re-refined because there is a shocking waste in this country of onceused oil which could be re-refined. This would turn out to be an additional saving. This country in terms of energy is probably more wasteful than most other countries.

Senator Missen:

– The oils in which we are deficient are the heavy oils.

Senator KEEFFE:

-That is true. Australia has to import probably 98 per cent of the bottom of the barrel oil which we need and use extensively particularly in the bituminisation of roads and also in the heavy engine oils. The oil that we have discovered to date at Moonie, in Bass Strait, and at the Wapet show in Western Australia and the other smaller shows has indicated that the oil coming from the bowels of the earth and from beneath the sea in Australia is very light but of very high quality. I would like to add something to this m the remarks that I will be passing later so that we will have it in the right context.

We are talking about the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources in relation to solar energy. This report was long overdue, as was the inquiry. It is a bit like the curate’s egg- some of it is good and some of it is bad. I was not a member of the Committee. I have read the report with some interest, and I want to take this opportunity to criticise some aspects of it. I think that today we are too blase when it comes to carrying out a technical investigation. We do not give it the same in-depth inquiry that we often should give it. The Committee, in spite of this and the handicaps under which it operated, has made a number of observations and recommendations regarding the status of solar energy in Australia. I hope it does not come to the stage that this Government again does what it appears it did prior to 10 December 1972 when expert committees with dedicated personnel from all political parties carried out fairly deep research jobs into particular aspects of a number of subjects only to find the reports were filed away and nothing happened. I sincerely hope that something will happen in relation to the recommendations of this report. Perhaps the most important of them is the statement that the main factor retarding the national appraisal of research effort required for the development of solar energy resources has been a lack of a national energy policy. Consequently, this Committee, as did the Fox report, the Royal Commission on Petroleum and other government inquiries, regarded the establishment of a national energy strategy as a most important priority.

Way back in the past when my Party was in government I know that we and the honourable senators on the other side of the chamber who had been in government previously said about certain recommendations which were made. I am going to quote a couple of them in a moment because it is probably necessary to tie them in with the national energy strategy. We have a tendency in this country to set up some sort of an ad hoc committee to make the appropriate investigation. Frequently such a committee comes down with a finding that an expert committee ought to be set up, and nothing is ever done. I refer to the Senate Select Committee on Offshore Petroleum Resources. Incidentally, it is interesting to recall the members of that Committee. Some of them are now supporters of the present Government. Senator Young, who is somewhere overseas at the moment, was a member of it. Former Senator Hannan, an ex- Victorian Liberal Party member who was sent to Coventry and did not come back to the Senate, was a member of it. Senator Laucke, now our esteemed President, was a member. Senator Webster, who is now a Minister, was a member. Senator Cotton, who is also now a Minister, was a member, as were the late Senator Greenwood, the late Senator Heatley and Senator Wright who later became a Minister. We used to call it the ministerial committee. Senator Wright was the Committee’s first Chairman who went into the Ministry. Then Senator Cotton became a Minister. Then Senator Greenwood became a Minister. The only unfortunate person who did not make it was Senator Young. He made the shadow ministry even if he did not get any further. Senator Webster became a Minister too. They were political heavies. One of the recommendations concerned the establishment of an inter-state commission. If the Government is going to have a proper energy policy or an energy strategy, quite obviously it needs some sort of national control. On page 33 of that report this recommendation is set out:

That, if a need for a network of interestate pipelines is established the Government consider the re-establishment of the Inter-state Commission empowered to regulate the interstate transportation of oil and gas.

During the days of the Labor Government we endeavoured to re-establish the Inter-state Commission. Honourable senators opposite came in here with all sorts of ideas about why it should not be re-established- even though there was a unanimous decision that the Inter-state Commission ought to be re-established. Unfortunately it did not come to pass because honourable senators opposite had the numbers in the Senate and they effectively blocked it, even though prominent members of the Ministry in the past and prominent members of the present Ministry were members of that Committee which made that recommendation. The questions that I have asked in the current session and in previous sessions concerning a national energy policy indicate that the Government is still at the stage where it is considering the subject. Its attitude is a little similar to its attitude to the establishment of a rural bank. It promised farmers in 1975 that one of its first actions would be the establishment of a rural bank. It was only when the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), with his nose to the political wind, discovered that he was running out of popularity that he decided to use this again as a gimmick quite recently, just in case an election is held on 3 December or 10 December or whatever date it may be held. If the Prime Minister loses his nerve I suppose an election will be held.

Senator Withers:

– Do you want one?

Senator KEEFFE:

-I do not care whether the Government calls an election because after the election- whether it is held in the middle of December or in April or May of next year- Senator Withers will be sitting on this side of the House and we will be sitting on the opposite side of the House. The Government can have an election when it likes. We are not worried about that. With all the chattering that honourable senators opposite are doing about elections, they are not endeavouring to stifle any of these criticisms.

Senator Walters:

– Who is doing all the chattering?

Senator KEEFFE:

-What the Government is doing is putting this country at risk and in a state of political instability. God knows, it has been unstable enough since 13 December 1975. This Government is making the situation even worse. I will have more to say about that when I make my speech on the Budget. I thought I might have been able to give honourable senators opposite copies of the Hansard which contained my speech to take home this weekend but they will be able to take copies of my speech home next weekend.

Senator Withers:

– Do you think anybody reads them?

Senator KEEFFE:

– We know that you do not, Senator Withers, because you boast in this place that you do not read anything. People put down signs, thumb prints and illustrations for you but you read the cartoons and you make your speeches that way.

Senator Devitt:

– Send him some smoke signals.

Senator KEEFFE:

– My colleague says that we should send Senator Withers some smoke signals. If Senator Withers cannot read Hansard vie will get our message across by sending smoke signals and that will probably help him. The lack of depth is obvious in the information contained in the answers to the questions that I have asked on a fairly broad basis so far as energy conservation is concerned. The respective departments do not appear to have given great thought to the answers. I think the Leader of the Government once said that if an honourable senator wanted a reply to a question it would cost $500 for one reply. My God, some of the replies that honourable senators on this side of the House have been receiving to questions are not worth 2 cents.

We ask questions in depth but we do not get the answers in depth. In this particular area, the Government is very shaky indeed. We see the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) day after day being asked a Dorothy Dix question. Sometimes he has received two weeks notice of these questions which are asked by someone on the other side of the chamber so that he can have the appropriate 50 pages of research carried out. He is not able to cope with questions. I think my colleague on this side of the chamber, Senator McLaren, highlighted that point when he spoke in the debate a few moments ago. I was sorry to cut off the political water of Senator Thomas when he looked as though he would close the debate. Both he and Senator Jessop who followed him in the debate act like a protection society- a sort of Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals-for the Minister. They do not have to defend him. He is a big boy. He has been here a long time. He has been making mistakes ever since he has been here, so what are a few more mistakes?

Senator Withers:

– At least he has got his job.

Senator KEEFFE:

-There is no need for all of them to go down with him. In Australia we are in a very unique position in that we are 80 per cent urbanised and perhaps depend on public transport more than any other country. With our well developed and established infrastructure of the sugar industry we should be following the example of the Brazilians and use this industry as a source of ethyl alcohol which can be used in conjunction with petrol to run motor vehicles.

Senator Missen:

– Instead of eating the poison.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Yes, instead of eating the poison. That is right. In any case, I suppose the sugar industry ultimately will be reduced rather than increased unless it is used for things other than sweetening tea. I had the temerity to say this recently to some people associated with the sugar industry who denied it, of course. I notice that this Government is now encouraging an experiment in Tasmania with sugar beet. If one visits Europe these days one will find that on every small piece of land which previously may not have been fully utilised sugar beet is now being grown. I understand that some experiments in new sugar development are being carried out at the Ord River. It is very much a pilot study and is not specifically directed towards increasing sugar production in this country. Ultimately, perhaps, it will be directed towards providing power alcohol. A small place at Sarina has been manufacturing power alcohol for some considerable time. This was of tremendous value during World War II. The project at Sarina could quite easily be the pilot study for this country. Brazil, with its serious balance of payments problem, this year hopes to obtain about 20 per cent of its total power requirements from the treatment of sugar cane. It may not now, of course, be economically feasible. If we keep on wasting our oilour hydrocarbon carbon products- in the way we are wasting them, in a matter of five or ten years, perhaps ten years at the outside, petrol will not cost a few cents under $ 1 a gallon as it does in metropolitan areas. In many parts of Australia, of course, it already has broken the $1 barrier, particularly in the more remote areas. We could easily find ourselves paying $2, $3 or perhaps even more for a gallon of petrol. We will then be forced to find alternative methods of energy for transport.

Honourable senators opposite are very excited about digging uranium. If some of the money that was going into that great propaganda campaign was directed towards finding alternative energy sources, this country would be much wealthier. Uranium is in limited supply anyway. It is not going to last all that long, even if all of it is dug out in the next three or four years. Its byproducts, of course, will last a long time but not necessarily as energy-producing factors. The short-sightedness of the people associated with the totally capitalist system, who are more interested in making money than helping the world to continue to go round, will probably eventually fall flat on their faces. Because of the lead times to develop alternatives, if they are required in the mid to late 1980s we must start developing them now. This is the note of warning I sounded a few moments ago. The Committee has been extremely narrow visioned on this matter of lead times and periods of availability. The recommendations are summarised and I have a couple of documents here which I have shown to the Chair. If the Minister does not object, I should like to incorporate them in Hansard. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard some of the recommendations from the report which will put the issue into proper perspective.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESD3ENT (Senator Melzer)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The document read as follows-

page 1390

QUESTION

RECOMMENDATIONS OF SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE

Energy Policy and Research

It is necessary to maintain a group of scientists and technologists in Australia working on solar energy projects and that there is an associated need for the involvement of industry to develop concepts into practical industrial applications.

The establishment of an energy policy in Australia is an important priority.

There should be no separate action taken to increase the level of funding or accelerate the development of solar energy until an overall energy policy is established.

The Commonwealth Government establish a statutory body to be called the Australian Energy Commission to have an overall responsibility for developing and co-ordinating long term Australian energy policy. This authority would be responsible to Parliament through the Minister for National Resources.

Funds provided to the Australian Energy Commission to enable it to undertake the following functions:

Determine priorities and allocate funds for research and development of all energy resources.

Allocate funds for the development of important aspects of energy research and development considered to require special stimulus.

Direct promotional activities to encourage the conservation of energy and the use of alternative energy resources.

Encourage the exchange of views between State energy authorities.

Promote the exchange of technical information between Australia and overseas countries.

Allocate funds for basic research into energy matters in Government research organisations and tertiary institutions.

Allocate funds for development and applied research into energy matters including expenditure on demonstration and proof of concept projects either directly or on a contract basis with Government and research organisations and industrial firms.

Provide assistance to individuals and organisations to enable monitoring of new projects incorporating alternative energy systems.

The CSIRO undertake more demonstration projects of industrial applications and that research and proof of concept studies be contracted to industry.

Heating and cooling of buildings

No taxation incentives be given to individuals or equipment manufacturers to encourage increased use of solar energy iri heating and cooling buildings.

Commonwealth and State construction authorities (including Local Government) encourage demonstration and proof of concept solar and energy conservation projects as part of their building programs where economic advantages can establish the suitability of alternative energy systems and energy conservation designs.

Byconversion and liquid fuels for transportation

Support should be given to research aimed at finding alternatives for liquid fuels; such research is vital simply because of the need to preserve national security and independence from total reliance on imports of hydrocarbon fuels in the future.

The production of ethanol, methane or oil by the conversion of organic materials, particularly in remote areas, be encouraged by the Energy Commission.

The production of methane for local use from urban wastes be investigated by the Energy Commission.

Electricity generation and photovoltaics

As large scale, central power generation using solar and wind energy will not be feasible before 2000, additional funding in this area is not needed in Australia. Fossil fuels for electricity generation will continue to be available well into the 2 1st century.

Research and development should be directed principally at small scale applications of electric power generation from solar energy which are suitable for isolated and remote locations. The use of alternative energy sources could be justified on economic grounds, in remote areas of Australia where the cost of conventional power is relatively high.

No Government research assistance in the field of photovoltaics as the application of this technology is highly specialised.

No introduction of import duties to encourage local production of silicon cells.

Other forms of energy related to solar energy

Basic research relating to tidal, wave and ocean thermal power should receive support on a competitive basis with other energy projects to enable Australia to maintain a watching brief on world-wide research in this area.

Basic research relating to the production, usage, and storage of hydrogen should continue to receive support in Australia, but on a competitive basis with other projects. Australia should maintain a watching brief on world-wide research and maintain an informed position on potential useful developments.

Advise the Government on all matters relating to the pricing and exploitation of fossil fuel and uranium resources.

The Australian Energy Commission be advised by an Australian Energy Advisory Committee which would provide advice on scientific and economic matters relating to an overall energy policy. The membership of the Advisory Committee would comprise representatives from industry, commerce, Commonwealth Government research bodies, Commonwealth and State Government energy authorities, the Australian Science and Technology Council and universities and tertiary institutions.

Solar Energy

The development of solar energy needs to be considered as part of an overall energy strategy. The evidence suggests that solar energy will not make any significant contribution to Australia’s energy needs before the end of the century. Solar energy should take its place within an overall energy strategy, the only areas which the Committee considers worthy of encouragement for commercial development at this stage are low grade heat applications for industrial purposes, heating and cooling of buildings, and small scale power generation for remote and isolated areas. In all other areas there is a need to maintain a watching brief on overseas research and development.

There is a need to maintain spending in real terms on solar energy research at Australian tertiary institutions until the priorities for energy research are established by the Australian Energy Commission.

The existence and operation of the proposed Australian Science and Technology Council will assist in overcoming and avoiding duplication and unco-ordinated effort. The avoidance of wasteful expenditure and duplication should be considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment as pan of its ‘Australian Science Policy Inquiry’.

Low temperature heat up to 60 C-applications for domestic purposes

The Commonwealth and State Governments establish a common approach for determining electricity tariffs for domestic solar hot water installations. It is suggested that rates applicable to solar water heaters be set after a study is made of the likely impact of solar hot water services on existing rate structures of the State electricity authorities.

Existing rates of customs duty and sales tax be maintained.

No taxation incentives be given to individuals or equipment manufacturers to encourage increased use of domestic solar appliances.

Standards be established for solar appliances together with performance data requirements and that a testing authority or testing program be established and funded in part by the Australian Energy Commission.

Low temperature heat (60 C-120 C) for industrial tions.

The CSIRO vacate the field of domestic flat plate collector development and concentrate on the development of industrial applications of solar energy.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I thank the Senate. Neither the Government, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation or the Committee seem to be aware of just how much research is going on or the areas in which that research is being carried out. Maybe this confusion has been brought about because of the confused answers from the Minister not only to me but to honourable senators on all sides of the chamber. Perhaps in future I might see some cooperation and perhaps might put a Dorothy Dix question to him, seek a Dorothy Dix reply, and suggest to the Minister that he give me a one page reply, not a 49 page reply. The Minister for Science cited four different figures within the space of a couple of months earlier this year. On 15 March he said that the figure of $1.2 7m was involved; on 24 March, $0.862m; on 9 March, $1.5m; and on 15 February, $0.75m. That is the information being given to the public. Equally as confusing is the Government’s thinking on possible alternative energy proposals. The Committee’s recommendation not to encourage the development of solar water heater installation by such means as tax incentives and so on is pretty short-sighted.

One of the first things that happens if you put in a solar hot water system, either for domestic use or commercial use, is that instantly one’s energy requirements are cut back. In other words we get energy from nature in some areas without any cost apart from the capital cost of installation and in other areas with probably only a minimum use of a booster. The immediate saving in terms of energy is quite substantial. The immediate saving in terms of expenditure is also quite substantial. I think this is a little bit irresponsible. I disagree with the Committee’s recommendation in this regard. I think some help should be given.

The figures show that approximately 40 per cent of electricity used in the domestic sector is used for water heating. I suppose that that is easier to understand. Whether we get that at a slightly lower tariff is irrelevant. The fact that we are using the additional energy indicates that that is where almost the bulk of the energy goes. The installation of solar heaters would save this electricity often generated by the burning of precious finite reserves of oil and natural gas. In almost every country area- I speak now of the more remote areas of this country- almost all of the electricity is generated by oil. In a few places it is generated by gas.

The Committee has failed also to take a long term view of the energy situation in this country. I am sorry that it did not come out with a positive and detailed recommendation to set up some sort of national energy strategy by way of an on going, in-depth committee. Another disturbing feature is the apparent lack of detailed investigation of the status of solar energy in other countries and the priority that such countries are giving to solar energy. I have said before- and I repeat- that there is justification for sending subcommittees or committees out of this country to investigate what is happening in other countries. But it is so rarely done.

I think the Joint Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House had about three international jaunts. The Committee was looking at other permanent parliament houses. When that Committee’s recommendations were presented, in the first instance they were not considered by the Government. I think that John Gorton was the Prime Minister of the day. We debated ourselves hoarse in both Houses of the Parliament on two or three occasions. The Government just made an announcement on what was to happen about a new and permanent Parliament House without any reference back to the Committee. Of course, there is an important moral here.

When a Senate select committee was investigating off-shore petroleum resources, a suggestion was made that there was a real need for someone from that Committee- and preferably the whole Committee- to visit other countries to ascertain what was happening in relation to development regarding oil spillages and deep drilling among other matters. But we never had the opportunity to do so. If any committee should have gone out of this country to do some investigation and find out what other more progressive countries were doing, obviously it was the Committee set up to investigate solar energy. I hope that governments in the future will not be so short-sighted. It was no problem at all for the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to hire a Trident jet to do a very short trip on his last mammoth overseas tour. It cost some $18,000. The trip could have been done more restfully by train for some -

Senator Jessop:

– You should not talk about that in the light of what Mr Whitlam did.

Senator KEEFFE:

– It cost $18,000. I am not making comparisons between governments. If the honourable senator wants me to make comparisons between governments, I will indulge in that too. The honourable senator will get the opportunity to do so on some future occasion. What I am saying is that for the sake of that $18,000- the same trip could have been done commercially for about $5,500- the Committee inquiring into solar energy could have gone virtually around the world and looked at all the places of interest. The money would not have been wasted. The suggestion I make is that, in future expert, committees set up to do a proper job ought to be given the opportunity to go out of this country to have a look at what other people are doing if that is considered to be to the benefit of the committee. I am not suggesting that anybody ought to go on junkets at all. I am in a safe situation as I have gone overseas as a delegate from this country only once in all the years I have been in the Parliament.

Senator Withers:

– It does not say much for your standing in Caucus.

Senator KEEFFE:

– If one does not contest ballots for overseas trips, it is extremely difficult to win a trip. They are not allocated as they are in the honourable senator’s party where members are able to get trips as a reward for services rendered. It does not happen like that in the Labor Party. There is normally a ballot in which people are selected. Usually the most capable people are picked. I hope that satisfies the honourable senator’s curiosity. If one does not contest the ballot one can not win it.

I have a number of overseas reports and inquiries into the status of solar energy. I wish briefly to outline some of the findings of these committees. Technical assessments by experts in the United States of America- the National Science Foundation/National Aeronautics Space Administration in 1973, Atomic Energy Commission in 1973, Federal Energy Agency m 1974, NSF in 1974 and the American Petroleum Society in 1975- all broadly agree that a significant fraction of energy supply could be taken up by diverse solar technologies within this century and far more shortly thereafter. Starting in the 1990s, these solar energy estimates considerably exceeded the United States Atomic Energy Commission ‘s most sanguine projections for the contributions of nuclear fission. Indeed, the United States AEC’s own report-that is, the MASH Report 1535- December 1974- concedes that in 2020 A.D. new non-fission technologies could supply five times as much electricity as the United States now uses. In short, relatively simple and small scale solar technology, starting decades after fission, could quickly overtake it and supply most of the world’s energy needs. Many people have aligned themselves with the development and use of nuclear energy. But they are now rapidly reaching the conclusion that perhaps this is not the answer to the maiden’s prayer.

In conclusion, I make the following comments: The full spectrum of activity from an initial concept to commercial production of a device or process is broad and has a long time scale. Fortunately much of the basic research relating to solar radiation, heat transfer and thermal processes is already well established. Some devices have been in commercial production for some time. Thus, although the newest concepts may take a generation to become commercially viable, the time scale of much of the presently envisaged research and development is relatively short. I think that the general thought of the Committee was probably to ensure that the maximum use was made of solar energy. But I come back to my earlier criticism that the Committee ‘s in-depth investigation was lacking in some respect.

Solar collectors associated with domestic hot water systems which operate in the temperature range from ambient to 60 degrees Celsius are already well established commercially. Developments in this area are likely to come from within the industry and to take the form of improvements in materials, design, production, transport and installation methods. With these improvements will come extensions in the areas of application of the devices. In the temperature range of 60 degrees Celsius plus 200 degrees Celsius, which embraces much of the industrial process heat load, some solar collectors based on the extension of the low temperature solar collectors have reached the demonstration stage. This is a very significant development. Medium temperature thermal systems of this type are now recognised as offering one of the best prospects for large scale solar energy utilisation in the next 25 years. This, generally speaking, is the crisis period for this country and many other countries. Thus, effective development will involve work and collectors, storage methods, energy transfer loops, controls and the engineering of systems optimised in terms of stated criteria. Bioconversion of solar energy has been studied for decades in relation to plant growth processes. However, the fundamental physics and chemistry are not well enough understood to allow sustained operation of the processes outside nature’s plant laboratory. Development of solar bioconversion processes is a likely proposition within the next 25 years.

Quite recently a fair bit of publicity has attached to the possibilities of using cassava. Brazil has again come to the fore in experimentation. It is planting cassava fairly extensively. Apparently it is fairly readily convertible to energy. The development of agricultural waste and forest production to provide raw materials for processing complexes producing liquid fuel is a prospect which suits Australia’s climate and its industrial research and development environment. The critical nature of Australia ‘s reserves of petroleum emphasises the need for the development of such energy alternatives. Before leaving the subject of the propagation of cassava I point out that it is a root plant that is now used pretty extensively by quite a few people, particularly Aborigines, in the northern parts of

Australia. It is easy to grow and it thrives on a little bit of cultivation. If, because of the fiddling with the International Sugar Agreement, the use of sugar cane for other reasons does not come about, obviously the sugar growing area is one part of Australia that should grow cassava excellently.

High temperature solar collectors have been used for research purposes for many years. Temperatures in excess of 300 degrees celsius have been generated and are currently used to test materials required to withstand nuclear blasts. The use of such solar collectors to replace the boiler in conventional thermal power generation has long been understood. However, the commercial development of solar power generation stations will be a long process, due mainly to the complexity of the systems presently envisaged and the scale of the investigation required.

Photovoltaic power systems in small packages are commercially available at the present time, largely as a by-product of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s space program. The problem with the large scale use of such systems is again one of cost rather than technology. But as the costs of oil and gas go up these alternatives become more attractive. I return again to the point that I made earlier in this debate. When we find ourselves paying $3-plus for a gallon of petrol we will probably look for alternative energy sources with much greater speed than we are doing now. I share the sentiments expressed by Senator Missen earlier that we ought to be investigating this matter.

The annual conference of the Institute of Engineers in 1977 indicated that solar energy alternatives are likely to play a large part in the Australian energy demand and supply scenarios within the next 25 years. However, these alternatives still require active research and development if they are to become viable alternatives to our current energy sources and this research and development must be done on a large scale now. The development of solar-powered generation stations will be a long process, due mainly to the complexity of the systems presently envisaged and the scale of the investigation required. That brings me back to the point that initiative ought to be shown on a massive scale by government. I have another document which I have also shown to the Chair and which I seek to have incorporated in Hansard. It is a scientific document, but I think it is necessary to incorporate it in Hansard to get my speech in the right context. I seek leave to have that document incorporated.

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

The document read as follows-

LEVEL OF ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN AUSTRALIA

by J. P. West, B.Sc. (Hons)

One of the Liberal-National Country Parties’ election promises was to increase and encourage research and development of alternative energy resources in Australia. This has not been forthcoming, and referral to Senate Hansard in almost any week will outline the hollow promises and words of Senator Webster, the Minister for Science. The following data, not only shows the lack of energy research and development in Australia, but more importantly the lack of knowledge at a government and departmental level of the nature, scope, and number of energy research programs in this country, who is carrying out this research and where.

For comparison, energy (non-nuclear) research and development in all other western countries runs into the hundreds of millions.

The past S years have witnessed a dramatic increase in international research investment, especially that concerned with the potential uses of natural energy resources as complementary sources of energy to fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Clearly, both Government and industry sponsored research organisations have an important and vitally necessary role to play in such research.

Although there are many areas in the energy field that require research, an order of priority for research and development of the more ‘attractive’ energy sources must be established. Such an order must be established very early in the formulation of any National Energy Strategy.

Energy research and development programs are now being pursued by most countries of the world, though on varying scales. For comparison, the energy research and development programs of the USA, Japan and Australia are briefly examined.

The USA Federal Government expenditure on all energy research and development in 197S was in excess of $2 billion (more than double the 1974 figure). Of this figure, in excess of $37 million was appropriated for solar energy research.

Further, an advisory panel of the Energy Research and Development Agency has recommended to Congress, a solar energy research and development program over the next IS years. This program is estimated to cost $3.52 billion, and is briefly outlined below:

Thermal Energy for buildings- -$1OOm

Renewable clean fuel sources

Photosynthetic production organic materials and hydrogen-$60m.

Conversion of organic materials to fuels and energy-$3t0m.

Electric power generation

Solar thermal conversion- $ 1, 1 30m.

Photovoltaic conversion-$780m.

Wind energy conversion-$610m.

Ocean thermal gradients-$53Om

Further, additional monies are to be appropriated for coal research, with emphasis on the liquefaction and gasification of coal, and reducing pollution by coal burning.

In Japan, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry and its agency for Industrial Technology and Science, have drafted a national program which aims at ensuring energy sources to satisfy Japan’s needs in the 21st century. An expenditure of $4.1 billion over the next 30 years is envisaged.

The program covers systematic research and development in four areas- solar, power generation, geothermal energy, the production of synthetic gas and oil from coal, and the use of hydrogen energy.

In the United Kingdom, over £134.5 million was spent on energy research and development by the National Government^ 1974-75.

In Australia, only a relatively small sum of money is annually allocated for energy research and development. These monies were increased when Labor came to power in 1972, but still lag far behind that spent in comparable countries.

Other than direct expenditure by Government’s research organisations (such as CSIRO, AAEC) only $288,000 was allocated by the Federal Government in 1976 for all energy research carried out by the use of ARGC grants. In the same year, the CSIRO only spent $684,000 on solar energy research and $360,000 for coal to oil research in 1974-75.

Many recent authoritative reports, such as the 1975 House of Commons Select Committee on Energy and Conservation, the Fox Report, the Flowers Royal Commission, ERDA reports and the Senate Select Committee on Solar Energy have all indicated the urgent need for large scale alternative energy research and development programs.

Over the past decade, Australia has slipped from being the world’s leading authority and researcher on solar energy to somewhere well down amongst the also-rans. This position can be retrieved, but it will require far more government support for energy research than is presently being made available. Compared to other countries Australia’s energy research and development program is pitiful. We have world class researchers- all they need is the money.

Australia is geographically, geologically suitable to energy research and development in the fields of solar and wind energy; oil and gas from coal; and the production of oils from plant matter such as sugar cane. The development of these technologies would not only strengthen our energy position and help overcome our dependence on the rapidly dwindling oil supplies, but it would be easily available to the Third World countries who do not have the high level technology necessary to develop large scale power networks.

The attached questions and answers also relate to the level of energy research and development in Australia.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I conclude by referring to a number of minor quotations that I think are of value. Again they highlight our inability really to grapple with things in relation to the investigation of alternative sources of energy. I refer firstly to the Liberal-National Country Party’s 1975 policy promises. One of them reads:

Solar energy is the major alternative source of energy available to us. Solar energy research will receive a high priority in our energy program.

Two years later it is not very high. It continues:

We will encourage the manufacture and installation of cheap and readily available solar units for hot water and domestic and office heating and fuelling.

Presumably the coalition parties are not going to give any tax concessions. The policy continues:

The Liberal and National Country Parties will place a high priority on research into the development of solar energy units for industrial applications.

They are very high sounding promises. Admittedly they were made a couple of years ago. Obviously honourable senators opposite have not read back on their policy documents and cannot catch up on their promises. I think that there are many people in Australia who will remember that when the next election comes about. I refer now to an article in the NT News of 19 April 1977, which reads:

An election promise by the Liberal-National Country Party Government to investigate the possibilities for the development of solar power, has not been matched by action.

That is what the Northern Territory News had to say this year. It went on to say:

Indeed, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for National Resources, Mr Doug Anthony, has indicated that the Government equates the matter with such low priority areas as the development of wind and tidal power.

In a recent letter Professor J. O’M. Bockris, Professor of Chemistry at Adelaide University-

He is one of the pioneers in this field-

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– He is from Flinders University.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am reading from a direct quote in the Northern Territory News. I thank the honourable senator for the correction. The article continues: he also said he doubted the feasibility of Australia taking the lead over such countries as the United States in the development of solar energy.

To illustrate the point, the solar energy research of the United States Energy Research and Development Administration alone is of the order of $US100m per annum’, he said.

Australia cannot hope to match this scale of effort’.

An estimate of the level of funds available for solar energy in Australia- probably one of the most richly endowed countries in the world with sunshine- has been made by Mr W. W. S. Charteris, Vice-President elect of the International Solar Energy Society and Chairman of the Department of Mechanical Energy at Melbourne University.

He says research funds allocated for 1977 to all Australian institutes, acknowledged as active research centres for solar energy, are in the order of $ 125,000.

I have just quoted the figure of $ 100m so far as the United States is concerned. The article continues:

In addition, he says, the Government supports solar research in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to the extent of about $560,000, giving a total support with Australia for all programs in the order of $690,000.

He points out that this support has to be compared with an annual budget for the Australian nuclear program of about $20m.

It has already cost this Government about $20m in the two years less a few weeks it has been in office to prop up the Mary Kathleen mine. That would have been very well spent indeed in the field of research.

Senator Steele Hall:

– Are you suggesting that Mary Kathleen should not be proceeded with?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I will not be talked into saying something that the honourable senator wants me to say. I know that he is very smart at that sort of thing, but it is not going to work with me. What I am saying is that when it comes to some small mining company like the Mareeba mining company the Government pulls out and takes home its marbles. When the Gunpowder mine closed down it cost the jobs of over 200 people and closed down a town of 600 people. Nothing was done about that by the Government. All that project asked for was $8.5m as carry-on money to keep those people in employment. The Government was not prepared to provide it because copper prices happen to be slightly low at the moment. There is no guarantee that they will be equally as low in another 12 months. If the Government had been fair dinkum about it I think that it would have saved the jobs of some of those people. When it comes to propping up a uranium mine the Government has unlimited funds. I would venture to suggest that if the Mary Kathleen project wanted another $20m tomorrow it would get it. The possibility of getting $2m for solar energy research is just about hopeless. The article went on to say:

He -

Referring to Mr Charteris- says the mining factor on the Australian scene is a strong interest at government level to provide a cohesive energy policy and an integrated research plan for Australia, and sufficient funding to provide a widespread and active coordinated energy research and development program.

But while the Federal Government may not appear to be very interested, the New South Wales State Government has put up over $lm for a single project and interest has been expressed in others by the Saudi Arabian Government and other overseas interests.

That is typical of this conservative Government’s policy of allowing free market adjustments to hold sway. If we are not careful we will find our best researchers, projects and patents snapped up by overseas countries and will then have to pay them for the technology that was originally developed in Australia.

Mr Anthony’s loud mutterings on the price of crude oil when in Opposition and now in government sometimes have to be read to be believed.

He consistently stated that to increase exploration and to conserve oil reserves the price should be raised to world parity. He is still arguing about those sorts of things. I have two or three more quotations. The Australian of 3 March 1977 stated:

The CSIRO should be doing more to develop alternative sources of energy to oil, according to the organisation’s new chief, Mr Victor Burgmann.

Yet the Government is doing its best to restrict the type and level of research carried out at the CSIRO and has also imposed staff ceilings. The introduction of staff ceilings was part of that famous attempt to bring down the deficit. The introduction of staff ceilings in so many government departments, of course, has caused chaos. The Canberra Times of 73 August 1976 stated:

If the solar energy which reached one-tenth of the desert area in Australia could be harnessed at 10 per cent efficiency, it could supply the world ‘s energy needs ‘ for ever ‘, the director of the Royal Institution, London, Sir George Porter, said in Canberra last week.

One alternative to harnessing solar energy was to use the photosynthesis of plants.

If Australia grew seven times more sugar cane than at present, the energy produced could supply all the fuel needs of Australia.

We have the country in which to grow it. Of course we need some water conservation to be able to grow it in some of the dryer northern areas. Of course no money has been allocated this year by the Government for water conservation. My final quotation is from the Australian Financial Review of 1 4 April 1 977. It refers to the program in Brazil in more detail than I gave a few moments ago. It states:

Brazil has undertaken a program to replace 20 per cent of petrol and diesel oil requirements for vehicle transportation with ethanol (ethyl alcohol).

It expects this figure to be reached by 1979 when ethanol production should reach 3.2 billion litres, mainly from sugar cane and cassava.

Brazil’s worry about motor vehicle fuel has been triggered by the realisation that this year its oil bill will hit the $US4 billion mark, or 40 per cent the value of its exports.

Should this situation be allowed to continue, Brazil’s balance of payments could reach a point where economic growth would stop.

While admitting that the ethanol program is still in its experimental stage, Brazil’s planners say it is a renewable resource from solar energy.

They also say that the cost of ethanol would be around 1 4c US a litre, cheaper than a litre of petrol.

When this experiment became known, a number of commercial people associated with the sugar industry in Australia, including one highly placed gentleman from the Bundaberg area who went to Brazil quite recently, became interested in studying the developments in Brazil. I am not sure that the Government has done very much about it, but perhaps Senator Thomas, who is the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources, will be able to tell us what has happened when he is summing up.

I make those criticisms. They are not made harshly. They are not made for the sake of point scoring politically. They are made from a feeling of sincerity, because the national energy crisis involves every one of us. Honourable senators opposite are not exempt. They will last longer because they have more personal funds with which to buy more petrol for longer. The crisis applies to both sides of the chamber and to everybody in this country, and we ought to be doing something about it.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South Australia

– There is no doubt that there is a growing realisation that the shortage of fossil fuels will become evident to modern communities long before reserves actually begin to deplete. In fact, their impending shortage will mean great economic turmoil among developed nations which rely upon high energy use. Those who possess these fuels will obviously want to take what economic benefit they can obtain from them. I am sure that all honourable senators and all members of parliament would want to see more effort put into the investigation and development of yield of energy from solar sources. I believe that the debate has shown and that the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources on solar energy has shown the need for the Australian Government to develop an integrated and coherent energy policy. This is one of the great challenges that stands before the Australian administration at this time.

I only want to say a few brief words in relation to this debate and the development of solar energy. If the issue is mishandled, the public can be led to expect too much from the future prospects of solar energy. As most rational people and most people involved in research would understand, solar energy cannot provide the major component of our energy needs in the foreseeable future. It can provide a very significant amount in lower grade energy needs, out it is wrong to hold out to a public that is becoming more and more aware of the impending crisis that solar energy is an alternative to major development of such energy sources as atomic energy. It is not an alternative to atomic energy and should never be held out as such. It is an adjunct, one of the many spheres which in the future will add to our energy resources or the more economical use of what we have in other fields.

In this regard, in this debate and in debate generally I believe there has been far too little emphasis on the private development involved in solar energy, not only in the sale of products which can produce that energy for the home user or hopefully for industry now or in the future but also in the actual development of techniques. I have a friend in South Australia who has been successful in developing quite a significant and novel idea in relation to solar energy. It has been taken up from a small works to a larger works and is being developed further. I believe that in the last several weeks some publicity has been given to three major Australian companies which have combined in a research effort. I think Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd is one of these companies. I do not retain the identity of the other two, but they are significant Australian companies. These three companies together have developed what is now said to be a most significant improvement in the collection and supply of solar energy. It must be remembered that this is specifically in the sphere of private industry. Whilst I wholeheartedly commend without reservation those spheres of development which are funded by government, I think it is wrong in this debate to proceed as if we do not acknowledge the contribution which is being made by Australian private firms and Australian individuals without the support which is being demanded in this debate.

My plea is that in considering the totality of experimentation and development of this most important energy source in Australia we do not forget the other side of the question and that in looking at support systems we do not fail to sup- port those in private industry who are doing their b it, and doing it successfully, in the development of solar energy. After all, beyond the perhaps limited and narrow parameters of research, the market place is a very good testing point of whether solar energy will be applicable to the commercial and domestic scene. I specifically mention the market place because it is here that the Government can provide a kind of support that I mentioned in a question that I asked of the relevant Minister in the Senate last week in relation to taxation concessions for the development and installation of solar units.

We should look not just at the research effort of the United States of America, as great as it is and commendable as it is, but also at the taxation attitudes of state governments and the Congress in the United States. They are actively encouraging on a fairly comprehensive basis the installation of solar energy units by applying direct tax concessions. I think we should move rapidly into consideration and implementation of such measures. In addition to simple tax concessions in that sphere, the United States Government is involved in great many areas of support of solar energy on a wider basis than probably has been mentioned in this debate. Solar energy is not something new. It stands behind all the fossil fuels we use today. We are talking about the use of solar energy in the modern sense of an instantaneous attainment of that usage from direct sunlight, but everyone who uses coal or petroleum should know that he is using solar energy in its stored form.

I make a plea on only two points in my small contribution to this debate. Firstly, I ask that we not forget to encourage the private development of solar energy, which is quite available and quite patent in this community. Secondly, I make a plea for the Government to be far ranging in its attitudes and to introduce tax concessions for solar energy installations and, further, for the saving of energy in general, as does the United States Government.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– in reply- In the first part of my contribution to this debate I should like to refer to some of the matters that other speakers have mentioned. When Senator McLaren finally got around to talking about solar energy his contribution was quite valuable. In regard to some of the comments made by Senator Jessop, with all due deference to him I should point out that the fact that he is a very good friend of Professor Bockras may not necessarily improve his rationality in regard to solar energy. Senator Jessop has had a long term interest in solar energy and I am sorry that he was not on the Committee and did not have the opportunity to see the things we saw and no doubt reach the conclusions that we reached. I point out to Senator Jessop that the only people who have criticised our report are the scientists, who are competing for research funds, and that must be taken into account. Senator Keeffe suggested, as did Senator Hall, that we should think about supporting with tax concessions people who are building solar water heaters. On the subject of energy conservation, if every house in Australia had a solar water heater 1.5 per cent of the energy consumed in Australia would be conserved. Those are the sorts of things that we learned by studying the subject over 12 months.

Senator Keeffe:

– It is still important.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– Yes, no doubt it is a significant portion.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– May I intervene? When you talk about 1.5 per cent of the energy used in Australia, does that include hydro-electricity, for example?

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– It is 1.5 per cent of the total energy consumption in Australia which would be conserved.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– But it would be more than that if hydro-electricity were included?

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-The definition was ‘energy consumption’. With regard to Senator Keeffe ‘s point about the expenditure of the United States on solar energy research, I point out that in the current year 1976-77, although the United States is spending about $180m on solar energy research it is spending $ 1,401m on nuclear research. That illustrates the priorities of the American Government.

Senator Keeffe:

– The point I was making was that they are giving solar energy more priority than we are.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I think the relationship between the amount we spend in Australia on nuclear research and the amount the Americans spend is fairly similar. Senator Keeffe also said that cassava was the answer to all our liquid fuel problems. It is rather interesting that the result of an exercise done by the Committee showed that to supply half the liquid fuel that Australia would need by the year 1985 cassava would have to be produced on 6.5 million hectares of land. It is interesting that scientists have not yet been able to demonstrate whether that land is available in the first instance or whether the environmentalists would allow Australia to have the huge monoculture that would be required for that sort of area. It is rather woolly thinking to suggest that we could make substantial inroads into our liquid fuel requirements through cassava.

The return to the solar energy report, the Committee took its reference on solar energy in March 1976. As Senator McLaren pointed out, we received 120 written submissions and had 12 days of public hearings in Canberra, Adelaide and Perth. We conducted 13 inspections, and those were very interesting. The Academy of Science was of great assistance to the Committee on technical matters and answered many of our technical questions. I should also like to pay tribute to Senator Durack, who was the initial Chairman of this Committee. He and the secretariat set the guidelines, and our thanks are due to Senator Durack. The Committee met a large number of very dedicated scientists during its inquiry and saw some very exciting work that they are doing. They are dedicated people and they enthused the Committee with the sort of work they are doing. In response to Senator Hall’s comments, I should say that we also met some very dedicated and successful manufacturers of solar water heaters and other solar energy equipment. Those manufacturers were in Perth and Adelaide in particular and they all paid a tremendous tribute to the work done 20 years ago in the early days of the establishment of the solar water heater by Roger Morse from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. He can be quite accurately described as the father of the solar water heater.

All of the scientists we met are convinced of the future of solar energy. They also want more money, and if the Government agreed to all their requests many hundreds of millions of dollars would be required for research funding. However, the report certainly advocates a greater degree of expenditure in some areas of solar energy. The Committee also agreed that there should be a greater interchange of information between countries. It was put to us that we need to do enough work in Australia to enable us to become members of the club. This was described to us as having enough information from our own sources to be worth something to other countries so that they would exchange information with us. That is an important recommendation in the report. Naturally, many of the scientists were disappointed that we did not advocate their particular field of interest in our report. If we had done that the report would have been much longer.

The main thrust of our recommendations related to the need to establish our energy priorities. The money put into research funds could be wasted unless that research is developed along lines that are going to be of value to this nation in the near future. One of the witnesses who appeared before the Committee coined a phrase which certainly changed my thinking on the matter of research funding. He referred to the technologically predictable future, which meant that it is very difficult to forecast what the world is going to be like in 10 years time, let alone 50 years time, and while we still need a basic research effort to continue, the applied research should be directed along the lines of national priorities. At the moment, work on solar energy m Australia is carried out mainly by the CSIRO. The priorities are determined entirely by the CSIRO executive, and I strongly maintain that the executive should continue to establish those priorities. That should be its role. The point I am making is that the Government has almost no say over the expenditure that CSIRO devotes to solar energy research. The other major area of research funding to solar energy in Australia is carried out by the Australian Research Grants Commission. Its priorities relate solely to the scientific value of the project. The value of the project from a national point of view has no relevance at all to its funding program.

The universities themselves allocate some of their own funds to solar energy research. That also is outside government control. An example of this is quite an exciting project shown to us in great detail by a group from the Australian National University headed by Dr Peter Carden. This project involves a very complicated system concerning solar ammonia. But the University itself decided not to continue funding this project which had reached the working model stage. It is my personal opinion that it is unfortunate that funds could not be found to continue this project. But the University itself decided that to continue funds through the concept stage was outside its true role as a research organisation.

In my opinion one example of very bad fundingthe sort of funding that went on in the past for solar energy in Australia- is that which I raised at Question Time this morning. I said that the Wran New South Wales Government had allocated $1.8m to the University of Sydney. I am not saying that the University does not deserve those funds or that the work it is doing is not extremely valuable. I certainly support the work it is doing, particularly into selective services on high temperature collectors. But many other organisations are equally or more deserving. To pick out one such organisation like that, with obviously no attempt at evaluating the whole area, is quite wasteful as regards research funding. Another example concerns oil from coal research. A great deal of funding still needs to be done in the very near future because no doubt our liquid fuels will come from that area in the near future. I pay tribute to the work the Western Australian Government is doing because, in contrast to the haphazard way in which the Wran New South Wales Government is acting, the Western Australian Government has established an Energy Advisory Council. Within that Energy Advisory Council it has established a solar energy study group. One of the main functions of this group is to evaluate national or State needs and to direct research funding in this area.

Another example of the sorts of problems the Committee considered concerns priorities in funding. For instance, the Atomic Energy Commission receives about $20m a year; coal research receives about $4m a year and solar energy research slightly in excess of $lm a year. Now I am not saying that those priorities are wrong but I doubt whether many people in Australia would say that they are correct. This brings me to underlining the main recommendation our Committee made in its report. It recommended that an Australian energy commission be formed to establish national priorities, to determine research priorities and to monitor and supervise research funding. We feel that is the only sensible way to determine the priorities in energy funding thereby putting solar energy into the context of other energy forms in Australia. If and when this commission is established and it makes its recommendations, no doubt it will recommend that in certain areas of solar energy far greater expenditure most certainly should be made available. The main thrust of our recommendations is that until that happens a lot of research funding can be wasted. Until we determine our energy policy, until we determine our research priorities, until we monitor and supervise research funding, we are not very happy about the way things are going.

Senator Jessop:

– It is a matter of urgency.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I agree with Senator Jessop that it is a matter of urgency. Another of our recommendations was that an Australian energy advisory committee be formed, consisting mainly of scientific people, to advise this proposed energy commission on scientific matters. I am very pleased to be able to say that this advisory committee has already been formed and has already brought down a report on the conservation of energy. Senator Keeffe mentioned pollution control. One of this committee’s recommendations was that we should have another look at the exhaust problem. It is rather interesting in that because of this exhaust emission control we could be wasting more fuel.

In closing my remarks I pay tribute to the members of our Committee who worked very hard. It was an ardous job. It was an enjoyable task but it was certainly a long and laborious one also. Senators Townley, Maunsell, McLaren, Robertson and McAuliffe were of tremendous help. Also no words of mine can pay sufficient tribute to members of the secretariat led by Charles Edwards. They did a wonderful job. I sincerely hope that Senate committees can be supported by people of the calibre and enthusiasm who supported this Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1400

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Report

Debate resumed from 24 May 1977, on motion by Senator Jessop:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– This inquiry was instituted at a time when there was extreme controversy about the merits or demerits of woodchips. I think that under the chairmanship of Senator Jessop and with the co-operation of all the Committee members we were able to bring down a report that endeavoured to establish the value of the middle ground. We visited the forests of New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania. I think the prime purpose was to try to justify the utilisation of mill waste and forest floor debris. We did that. At the same time, we laid down stringent conditions about logging. I think in the main the mistakes of Eden have not been repeated.

It is true that a lot of questions have not been completely answered. As late as today the Western Australian representatives of the Forestry Products Industrial Council indicated that in at least 10 to 15 yean time, die-back could have decimated a considerable acreage in Western Australia. That problem has spread to Victoria. This disease is related also, but to a lesser degree to the salinity problem. So while we believe we have provided for some form of co-existence, other matters are involved. We have to take people on trust. It is true that all State governments have effective land management plans which, to conservationists, mean subtracting some land for forests and their conversion into national parks and wildlife reserves. Conversely, of course, we have recommended incentives to private land owners to convert some of their disused, sub-marginal farmlands into forests. That has some relationship, of course, to the softwoods agreement. But by and large we have tried to provide for the future. I think it is well known that a former illustrious senator, Senator Everett, was part of a troika in Tasmania which brought down a supplementary report that largely paralleled what we have advised.

There are other matters that can cause us worry. The developmentalists or the foresters argue that forests can be regenerated after 30 to 40 years as virtual wildlife habitats. But some experiments with the high fertilisation of blue gum indicate that it will be possible to realise a cash crop after 15 years. I know that this is one of the matters about which the conservationists are not very happy. Some months ago I had the opportunity to go to Japan. I was asked by officials there about our woodchip output and I was able to warn them that in the next ten years we will be looking at the effects on some of our regenerated forests- whether the forest nutriment nas been retained and whether there has been an increase in salinity. These are the dangers, and we have warned both internal and export timber buyers of them. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, Presidential Decree No. 1153 of President Marcos of the Philippines, calling upon all citizens over ten years of age to plant one tree a month for the next five years. It may be a Utopian concept but I think itindicates that South East Asia realises, that one cannot continue indefinitely to desecrate one’s forest lands and expect to avoid producing a condition similar to that of much of the Middle East, as a result of the excessive timber-getting of the Middle Ages.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The document read as follows-

page 1400

MALACANANG

Manila

page 1400

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1 153

page 1400

REQUIRING THE PLANTING OF ONE TREE EVERY MONTH FOR FIVE CONSECUTIVE YEARS BY EVERY CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES

WHEREAS, more abundant natural resources, particularly forest resources, will prevent floods, droughts, erosion and sedimentation, and will increase our water supply needed to generate more power, expand farm productivity, and meet the ever increasing demand for domestic consumption of our exploding population; and

WHEREAS, to achieve a holistic ecosystem approach to forest resource management, to prevent irreversible consequences of human activities on the environment, and to promote a healthier ecosystem for our people, it is time to make an urgency call upon our citizenry to plant trees:

page 1400

QUESTION

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS,

President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree the following:

SECTION 1 . It is the policy of the State to call upon every citizen of the Philippines to help, as a duty and obligation, to conserve and develop the resources of the country.

SEC. 2. In furtherance of said policy, every citizen of the Philippines at least ten (10) years of age, actually residing therein, unless physically disabled to do so, shall plant one tree every month for five ( 5) consecutive years.

SEC. 3. The planting of such trees shall be done in any of the following places:

  1. In lands or lots owned by his family;
  2. In lands or lots leased by his family with the consent of the owner thereof:
  3. In lands which are parts of public grounds or places such as plazas, schools, markets, roadsides and parks; and
  4. In lands of the public domain designated by the Presidential Council for Forest Ecosystem Management, hereafter referred to as the Council, such as appropriate forest lands, grazing or pasture lands, mineral lands, resettlement lands, civil and military reservations.

SEC. 4. The trees to be planted shall be fruit-bearing, shade, ornamental or forest trees, and the same shall be taken care of for at least two years after each planting and replaced if the same die, are diseased or are defective.

SEC. S. The Council, in consultation with the appropriate government agencies, shall issue such rules and regulations which may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Decree and Letter of Instructions No. 423 whenever applicable.

SEC. 6. Any person who violates any provision of this Decree or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder shall be punished with a fine of not more than one thousand pesos or, in appropriate cases, with disqualification to acquire or enjoy any privilege granted exclusively to citizens of the Philippines, such as the acquisition either through sale, free patent, homestead, or lease of public lands, enjoyment of a franchise to own or operate a public utility or the grant of a lease, licence or a privilege involving natural resources; and for a period of five years be disqualified to hold public office, to graduate from any educational institution at all levels, to take any bar, board or civil service examination, and to practise any provession licensed and regulated by the Supreme Court or the Professional Regulation Commission.

SEC. 7. This Decree shall take effect upon its promulgation.

Done in the City of Manila, this 6th day of June in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-seven.

By the President:

(SGD) JUAN C. UVERA

Presidential Assistant (SGD) FERDINAND E. MARCOS President of the Philippines

(SGD) MELQU AIDES T. DE LA CRUZ CESO II

Presidential Staff Director Malacanang Records Office

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Mindful of the time, I wish to wind up my remarks by saying that although, by and large, most States have kept their word, I think the Chairman will agree, when we tried to rationalise conservation against normal forestry requirements, we were told by the Victorian Forestry Commission in particular- and I must say that Western Australia had a better batting record- of the concept of forest enclaves. On that basis, I fear that the pledges are not being honoured in regard to the Leadbeater possum, which thrived in forests that virtually grew again after the terrible Victorian bushfires of 1939. To illustrate my point I ask that a number of documents be incorporated in Hansard. The first is question No. 1 133 to the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, the answer to which confirms the existence of the Leadbeater possum, the fact that certain problems are presented but that in the final analysis the preservation of its habitat is a matter for the Victorian Forestry Commission.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The document read as follows- (Question No. 1133)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Are portions of the Gippsland forests regarded as the major remaining habitat of the Leadbeater Possum?
  2. Has the Government considered the use of Conservation Grants, or any other legislation aimed at conserving endangered wildlife species, to purchase adequate forest enclaves within the Gippsland State Forest to ensure the survival of the Leadbeater Possum?
Senator Carrick:

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

  1. 1 ) The major remaining habitat for the Leadbeater’s Possum is to the north-east of Melbourne near Marysville, within an area of mountain ash forest of approximately 400 square miles. This area lies in the Victorian Highlands and is really outside the definition of Gippsland. Only the very south-eastern limits of the known range extend to Gippsland.
  2. No. All the known habitats of Leadbeater’s Possum are within State forests which belong to the Victorian Government, and necessary actions to ensure the survival of this species depend on management of these forest areas. Under the Victorian Forests Act 1958, the Forests Commission of Victoria is charged with responsibility for the protection of fauna in State forests and consequently with the necessary management of fauna habitats.
Senator MULVIHILL:

– The contrary view is expressed in the next document, which will consist of pages 20 and 21 of a submission to our Committee by Professor Peter Rawlinson on the Leadbeater possum, virtually warning that a minimum of 6,000 hectares is needed in the Gippsland region and stating the opinion that there is barely that much left now. I seek leave to incorporate that document in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The document read as follows-

Yet Mr Hanson, Acting Director General of the Forestry and Timber Bureau stated to this Inquiry (Hansard, 3rd October 1975 p. 38):

You will find that if you never log the forest where the Leadbeater Possum is, the Leadbeater Possum will disappear. The habitat of the Leadbeater Possum is a forest of an age between 20 and 40 years. So, if you never log it you are very rapidly going to lose the possum. ‘

This statement is completely untrue and not based on any factual documentation. It deserves to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

The ash forests of the Central Highlands were the subject of a F.C.V. report in 1974. From this report it can be seen that the ash resource of the area is only 95,000 ha and only 5,420 ha. are pre 1939. This is the potential Leadbeater’s possum habitat and would have to form the nucleus for a reserve to protect the species.

Leadbeater’s possum is a dependent tall open forest resident as indicated by Tyndale-Biscoe and Calaby (1975). It is commonly found in association with two other dependent tall open forest residents- the mountain possum Trichosurus caninus and the Greater Glider Schoinobates volans, both of which are much more widely distributed.

The minimum reserve size indicated for the greater glider by Tydale-Biscoe and Calaby is relevant for dependent forest animals in general. Thus a reserve of about 6,000 ha. would be necessary, but the habitat may already be down to 5,420 ha.- thus urgent action is needed to preserve the species.

However, the F.C.V. have prepared a utilisation plan for the Central Highlands ash forests under which they will be harvested by clear felling and put onto 60 year rotations, i.e. all areas will be clear felled every 60 years. It is known that hollows will not form in ash trees of less than 100 years and the Leadbeater’s possum habitat will not be re-established in 60 years. There is no doubt that this utilisation plan if followed will exterminate Leadbeater’s possum.

Unfortunately a pulpwood agreement already exists for this ash forest resource. Under the terms of A.P.M.’s 1974 agreement, 45 per cent of the total h.a.s. of 765,000 m³ p.a. must come from ash forests (denned as ‘mountain forests’ in the Act). This amounts to 344,250 m³ p.a., but the F.C.V. have estimated that the total sustained yield of timber from the Central Highlands ash forest is only 700,000 m³ p.a. Thus A.P.M. are already entitled to at least 49 per cent of the ash resource for pulpwood and if any forest is reserved for the conservation of the Leadbeater’s possum sawlog production must suffer.

Thus the Leadbeater’s possum is actually threatened with extinction by the oldest woodchip agreement in Australia.

page 1402

QUESTION

PULPMILLS AND POLLUTION

In industrialised countries pulp and paper mills are generally recognised to be amongst the most polluting industries. The Australian situation bears this out, for example in 1972 the Director of Environmental Control for Tasmania prepared a report in which he named the paper making industry as the states major polluter. In South Australia Lake Bonney is now grossly polluted with pulp mill effluents and in Victoria the three paper pulpmills (A.P.M. Maryvale; BowaterScott, Myrtleford; and Smorgons General Paper Mill, West Footscray) are all causing pollution problems for the E.P.A.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– The next document relates to nature conservation grants by the Australian Government, in the Cass, Berinson and Newman eras. There have been a number of them but I feel they can be at times too little too late. I ask that this document be incorporated to prove that where there is a will there is a way. There have been grants but I believe that in this instance the cash value of the Gippsland forests that the Victorian Forestry Commission does not want to surrender ought to become part of these grants, as indicated in the document which I seek leave to incorporate.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (Question No. 1135)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1) Did the Australian Government grant $1,250,000 to the Victorian Government in May 1975, towards a goal of $2,000,000 to purchase wildlife habitat to save the Helmeted Honey-Eater which is the State fauna emblem of Victoria.
  2. Is it true that, due to the lack of agreement between Federal and State Governments, the desired land has not yet been purchased.
  3. What other States have been in receipt of grants for such habitat procurement purposes, and what finality has been reached in such cases.
Senator Carrick:

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

  1. 1 ) An Agreement under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 for the provision of financial assistance to Victoria for the acquisition of land at Yellingbo was signed by the responsible Commonwealth and State Ministers in May 1977. The Agreement was tabled in Parliament on 24 August 1977.

The land listed in the schedule to this Agreement represents the sole remaining habitat of the Helmeted Honey-Eater and following acquisition the land will be classified as a State Faunal Reserve.

The financial assistance provided to Victoria under the Agreement is an amount that is not less than two thirds of the amount expended by the State upon the acquisition of the land, or $ 1 ,250,000, whichever is the lesser.

  1. No. The State purchasing authorities have been acquiring land progressively with funds provided under the Agreement and also using State funds.
  2. Under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1 974, Agreements for the provision of financial assistance to all States for land acquisition for Nature Conservation Purposes have been signed. Details are as follows:

New South Wales-Violet Hill, Myall Lakes; Limeburners Creek Nature Reserve.

Victoria- Mallacoota Inlet National Park; Mt Richmond National Park; Yellingbo Faunal Reserve.

Queensland- Eubenangee Swamp National Park; Crows Nest Falls National Park; Lamington National Park; Cape Cleveland.

South Australia- Murray’s Lagoon; Pike River Gurra Gurra Lakes; Coffin Bay Peninsula; Deep Creek; Morganvale/Canopus.

Western Australia- -Yalgorup National Park; Benger Swamp; Cape Le Grande National Park; Nambung National Park; Lake Chandala

Tasmania- Badger Island; Lavinia Nature Reserve (King Island); Labillardiere Peninsula and Partridge Island; Asbestos Range; Three Hummock Island.

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I appreciate the effective response to the request for incorporation of those documents, which I think speak for themselves. The Committee did establish a landmark. These documents and reports have been circulated overseas. I have also received reports from Canada and Burma- despite its teak forests -and from New Zealand and other countries in South East Asia..! feel that with what was laid down under the chairmanship of Senator Jessop, Senator Melzer, Senator Colston, Senator Bonner, Senator Townley, and our very effective back-up secretarial staff under Peter Dawe, our efforts in four States were well worthwhile. I hope the paper mill industry will be aware of our criticism and will do what other States have done, honour these agreements. I leave it at that.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– Having in mind the time, I welcome the opportunity to make some comment on the report that has been tabled by our very able Chairman, Senator Jessop. I wish to pay tribute to the secretariat and to all the Committee members who worked on the report. Perhaps one could say that the report and the Senate’s having the Science and Environment Committee look at this particular issue, was prompted by the concern expressed by many conservationists, environmentalists and others on this subject. Perhaps one could also say at the same time that a little too much emotion was engendered in the debate in the early stages because of the concern expressed in relation to the woodchip industry of this country. The Committee travelled extensively and received contributions from many, many people, all of which allowed and assisted us to bring in this report. They included environmentalists, conservationists and people in and outside the industry itself; there were foresters and many others, and after spending much time in the field, and hearing evidence, the report was brought in. Quite a few years ago I was involved in a conservation matter and, in giving a speech on the subject boiled it down- and I suppose one could say this as far as the woodchip industry also is concerned- as involving the four Cs; conservation, commerce, co-operation and plain good Aussie commonsense. I think if we proceed on those four principles the woodchip industry can be utilised in this country to create employment opportunities for many, provided the recommendations that were brought down by our committee are strictly adhered to. I believe both State and Federal governments have a responsibility to ensure that they are implemented so that some of our great forests will not be destroyed and their use denied to future generations. By the same token, although governments can do much, they can only do it where they have the responsibility, that is, in the control of State forests.

One of the things that does concern me is the approach of the private owner. No one has control over private areas. In Tasmania we saw evidence of the fact that certain private owners of freehold land who were also involved in the woodchip industry had not exercised the control that had been exercised in the State forests of Tasmania and Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. So although this report and its recommendations can be followed by the State governments, and by the Federal Government where it has the responsibility, it is difficult to police it on privately owned land.

Recently I had reason to be proud of the fact that this report had been produced. Having visited the state of Washington in the United States I went to a little place called Shelton just outside Olympia where Simpson’s timber industry had been operating for well over 150 years. Strange to say, my wife lived there some 20 years ago. She was able to tell me that despite that long interval she could see no detrimental effect to the environment as a result of the operations of the woodchipping and timber industry generally. This goes to show that, with proper precautions and properly organised industries, the job can be done without destroying the forests. I was able to show the general manager of Simpsons and the Mayor of Shelton our woodchip industry report. They were very impressed by it and, having looked through their forests I could see that what we were recommending was already being implemented in that area. It gave me a sense of pride to think that our recommendations were already being implemented by another country on the other side of the world.

With those few remarks, and in view of the time element, I would only express finally my great thanks to Peter Dawe, the secretariat and my fellow committee members.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– in reply- I would like to wind up the debate. I made a speech about the report when I tabled it. The quotation introducing the report bears repeating. It is from Proclamation 2 of the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and reads:

The protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue which affects the well-being of peoples and economic development throughout the world; it is the urgent desire of the peoples of the whole world and the duty of all Governments.

I think that Proclamation sums up very nicely the approach that the Committee adopted to the inquiry. Our Committee took over this inquiry or reference from a previous Senate committee under the chairmanship of Senator Keeffe and composed of other honourable senators. I pay a tribute to the efforts that they put into the matter before we took it over. I also pay a tribute to Senator Mulvihill, the Deputy Chairman of the present Committee, and to our colleagues, Senator Bonner, Senator Townley and Senator Melzer who have been of great assistance. Honourable senators who have spoken in the debate have praised the work of the secretariat. I must endorse again the work that has been put into the presentation of this report by the secretariat. Its efforts are certainly well appreciated.

I am glad to say that during the inquiry State government forestry departments recognised some areas in which they could improve their management techniques and did make changes. I think this was a tribute to the sincerity of the Committee’s efforts in this regard. Also, we were able to persuade the Government at least to recognise the importance of adopting one of our recommendations. I refer to recommendation No. 6 in regard to research, which states:

The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Science set up a working group empowered to determine the details of research needs as outlined in this report, establish research priorities and make recommendations for the initiation and support of appropriate associated research programs. The Ministers should ensure that all parties with a legitimate interest in the findings of the group have adequate opportunity to present their views.

That working group was formed and I understand that some preliminary work has been done. But its activities have been held up pending the presentation of the report of the Australian Science and Technology Council on the assessment of forestry research. This report was requested by the Forestry and Timber Bureau of the Department of Primary Industry. I understand that the presentation of that report is imminent and that the Government will take some action as a result of the recommendations of the Senate Committee.

The report is worthy of intense study by the Government. I believe that many of the recommendations that we have made, if implemented, would contribute a great deal to the welfare of the Australian people, particularly with respect to land use planning which is an area which we believe has been neglected and an area in which State and Federal governments ought to get together in order to ensure that proper policies are introduced to deal with that aspect. I share Senator Mulvihill ‘s pleasure that the New South Wales Government has gone part of the way towards acceding to the Committee’s request with respect to the Nadgee area. I know that Senator Mulvihill is pressing his State counterparts and hopefully we will get the New South Wales Government ultimately to go the complete journey.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I will see our Premier on Sunday at a very important meeting.

Senator JESSOP:

– Give him my regards and tell him that we expect him to go the whole way as far as the report is concerned. I have great pleasure in supporting the report.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1404

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Report

Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Senator Ryan:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– On behalf of Senator Ryan, I wish to state that events have passed by this item. I have nothing further to say.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 5 p.m.

page 1405

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Commonwealth Funding for Aborigines (Question No. 896)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in south western Queensland in the shires of Bulloo, Murweh, Paroo and Quilpie since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and /or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) See tables printed in Hansard on 17 August 1977 pages 2 14-4 1.
  2. and (4) See answer to House of Representatives Question No. 633, Hansard, 2 June 1977, page 2576.

Commonwealth Funding for Aborigines (Question No. 897)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in south-east Queensland in the Cities of Ipswich, Toowoomba, Brisbane, and Redcliffe since December 1969.
  2. ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) See tables printed in Hansard on 17 August 1977 pages 2 14-41.
  2. and (4) See answer to House of Representatives Question No. 633, Hansard, 2 June 1977, page 2576.

Commonwealth Funding for Aborigines (Question No. 898)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in central Queensland in the Cities of Rockhampton and Gladstone since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2) See tables printed on Hansard, on 17 August 1977 pages 214-41.
  2. and (4) See answer to House of Representatives Question No. 633, Hansard, 2 June 1977, page 2576.

Commonwealth Funding for Aborigines (Question No. 899)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in central Queensland in the Shires of Banana, Broadsound, Calliope, Duaringa, Fitzroy, Livingstone, Miriam Vale, Monto, Mount Morgan and Taroom since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) See tables printed in Hansard on 17 August 1977pages214-41.
  2. and (4) See answer to House of Representatives Question No. 633, Hansard June 1 977, page 2576.

Commonwealth Funding for Aborigines (Question No. 900)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in the Darling Downs area of Queensland in the Shires of Goondowindi, Allora, Cambooya, Chinchilla, Stanthorpe, and Tara since December 1 969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in this area since December 1969,
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) See tables printed in Hansard on 17 August 1977 pages 2 14-41.
  2. and (4) See answer to House of Representatives Question No. 633, Hansard! June 1977, page 2576.

Commonwealth Funding for Aborigines (Question No. 901)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in the Roma Division of Queensland in the Shires of Roma, Balonne, Bendemere, Booringa, Bungil and Warroo since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and /or organisation in these areas since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in this community since December 1 969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) See tables printed in Hansard on 17 August 1977 pages 2 14-41.
  2. 3 ) and ( 4 ) See answer to House of Representatives Question No. 633, Hansard! June 1977, page 2576.

Commonwealth Funding for Aborigines (Question No. 902)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in the Shires and Cities of Biggenden, Burrum, Eidsvold, Bundaberg, Maryborough, Gympie, Gayndah, Isis, Kilkivan, Kolan, Mundubbera, Murgon, Nanango, Noosa, Perry, Widgee, Wondai, Woocoo and Woongarra since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and /or organisation in these areas since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) See tables printed in Hansard on 17 August 1977,pages214-41.
  2. and (4) See answer to House of Representatives Question No. 633, Hansard! June 1977, page 2576.

Commonwealth Funding for Aborigines (Question No. 903)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in Central Western Division of Queensland Shires of Aramac, Barcaldine, Bauhima, Belyands, Blackall, Emerald, Jericho, Longreach, Peak Downs, and Tambo since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and /or organisation in these areas since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) See tables printed in Hansard on 17 August 1977, pages 2 14-41.
  2. and (4) See answer to House of Representatives Question No. 633, Hansard! June 1977, page 2576.

Commonwealth Funding for Aborigines (Question No. 904)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affaire, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in the Far Western Division of Queensland in the Shires of Baroo Boulia, Diamantina and Winton since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in these areas since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) See tables printed in Hansard on 17 August 1977, pages 2 14-41.
  2. and (4) See answer to House of Representatives Question No. 633, Hansard! June 1 977, page 2576.

Commonwealth Funding for Aborigines (Question No. 90S)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in the Mackay Division of Queensland in the Cities and Shires of Mackay, Mirani, Nebo, Pioneer, Proserpine, and Sarina since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in these areas since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) See tables printed in Hansard on 17 August 1977 pages 2 14-41.

    1. and (4) See answer to House of Representaives Question No. 633, Hansard! June 1977, page 2576.

Commonwealth Funding for Aborigines (Question No. 906)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in the Cairns Division of Queensland in the Cities and Shires of Cairns, Atherton, Cardwell, Douglas, Eacham, Herberton, Hinchinbrook, Johnstone, Mareeba, and Mulgrave since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in these areas since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) See tables printed in Hansard on 17 August 1977 and pages 2 14-41.
  2. and (4) See answer to House of Representatives Question No. 633, Hansard! June 1977, page 2576.

Commonwealth Funding for Aborigines (Question No. 907)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in the Shires of Cook and Torres since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in these areas since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) See tables printed in Hansard on 17 August 1977pages214-41.
  2. and (4) See answer to House of Representatives Question No. 633, Hansard! June 1977, page 2576.

Commonwealth Funding for Aborigines (Question No. 908)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in the Townsville Division of Queensland in the Cities and Shires of Townsville, Charters Towers, Ayr, Bowen, Dalrymple and Thuringowa since December 1969.
  2. ) What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in these areas since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) See tables printed in Hansard on 17 August 1977pages214-41.
  2. and (4) See answer to House of Representatives Question No 633, Hansard! June 1977, page 2576.

Commonwealth Funding for Aborigines (Question No. 909)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. What was the total funding provided by the Federal Government annually, both directly and indirectly, to various Aboriginal communities and organisations in the North Western Division of Queensland in the Shires and Cities of Mount Isa, Cloncurry, Burke, Carpentaria, Croydon, Etheridge, Flinders, McKinlay and Richmond since December 1969.
  2. What funding has been provided annually to each Aboriginal community and/or organisation in these areas since December 1969.
  3. How many houses have been built annually for Aboriginals in these communities since December 1969 and what has been the annual cost of these houses to the Federal Government.
  4. Approximately how many Aboriginals remain to be housed in this area.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) See tables printed in Hansard on 17 August 1977 pages 214-41.
  2. and (4) See answer to House of Representatives Question No. 633, Hansard! June 1977, page 2576.

Commonwealth Funding for Aborigines (Question No. 1080)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 3 June 1977:

  1. How many organisations in Australia receive funds to finance their activities in the Aboriginal field.
  2. What is the name and location of each organisation and what amounts has each organisation received m each of the past three years.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) See tables printed in Hansard on 17 August 1977 pages 214-41. Information prior to year 1975-76 is not readily available and to collect and tabulate it would take an inordinate amount of staff time and resources.

Uranium Mining: Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 1138)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. Have the Minister, the Government, and interdepartmental committees finished their deliberations on the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report (Fox Report); if so, when is the Government likely to implement the following recommendation made in the Fox Report; ‘Consideration to be given to the need to amend the Land Rights Act to enable Aboriginal land to be leased to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife for the necessary term.’
  2. If the Government is not going to implement this recommendation why not.
  3. Does this mean that this Government is negating its election promises to the Aboriginal people; if not, why not.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The Government’s decision on uranium mining in Australia was announced on Thursday, 25 August 1977. Full details were provided in the ministerial statements issued at that time.

Uranium Mining: Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 1139)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. Have the Minister, the Government and interdepartmental committees finished their deliberations on the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report (Fox Report); if so, when is the Government likely to implement the following recommendation made in the Fox Report: ‘An opportunity to be given for claims to be made and determined under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act in respect of the land formerly part of Mudginberri and Munmarlary (including Jabiluka).
  2. If the Government is not going to implement this recommendation, why not.
  3. Does this mean that this Government is negating its election promises to the Aboriginal people; if not, why not.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The Government’s decision on uranium mining in Australia was announced on Thursday, 25 August 1977. Full details were provided in the ministerial statements issued at that time.

Uranium Mining: Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 1140)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. Have the Minister, the Government, and interdepartmental committees finished their deliberations on the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report (Fox Report); if so, when is the Government likely to implement the following recommendation made in the Fox Report; ‘An agreement to be reached with the Northern Land Council, and any other Aboriginal group it is thought should be consulted, respecting the basis on which the Aboriginal land to which we have referred and Woolwonga, are to become part of a national park. ‘
  2. If the Government is not going to implement this recommendation, why not.
  3. Does this mean that this Government is negating its election promises to the Aboriginal people; if not, why not.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The Government’s decision on uranium mining in Australia was announced on Thursday, 25 August 1977. Full details were provided in the ministerial statements issued at that time.

Uranium Mining: Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 1141)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. Have the Minister, the Government and interdepartmental committee finished their deliberations on the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report (Fox Report); if so, when is the Government likely to implement the following recommendation made in the Fox Report: The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to create a Land Trust or Land Trusts under sections 4 and 1 1 ( 1 ) of the Land Rights Act, and the Governor-General to grant the land under section 12.
  2. If the Government is not going to implement this recommendation, why not.
  3. Does this mean that this Government is negating its election promises to the Aboriginal people; if not, why not.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The Government’s decision on uranium mining in Australia was announced on Thursday, 25 August 1977. Full details were provided in the ministerial statements issued at that time.

Uranium Mining: Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 1142)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. Have the Minister, the Government and interdepartmental committees finished their deliberations on the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report (Fox Report): if so, when is the Government likely to implement the following recommendation made in the Fox Report: ‘Amendments to be made to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to enable Aboriginal Land to become pan of a national park, and land rights claims to be made and dealt with notwithstanding that land has become pan of a national park’.
  2. If the Government is not going to implement this recommendation, why not.
  3. Does this mean that this Government is negating its election promises to the Aboriginal people; if not, why not.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The Government’s decision on uranium mining in Australia was announced on Thursday, 25 August 1977. Full details were provided in the ministerial statements issued at that time.

Uranium Mining: Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 1143)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. Have the Minister, the Government, and interdepartmental committees finished their deliberations on the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report (Fox Report): if so, when is the Government likely to implement the following recommendations made in the Fox Report: ‘Consideration to be given to amendment of the Land Rights Act to enable the land shown on Map 16 within the line edge blue thereon (apart from alienated land within that area and the site of the regional centre) to become the subject of a Land Trust or Trusts ‘.
  2. If the Government is not going to implement this recommendation, why not.
  3. Does this mean that this Government is negating its election promises to the Aboriginal people; if not, why not.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The Government’s decision on uranium mining in Australia was announced on Thursday, 25 August 1977. Full details were provided in the ministerial statements issued at that time.

Uranium Mining: Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 1144)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. Have the Minister, the Government, and interdepartmental committees finished their deliberations on the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report (Fox Report); if so, when is the Government likely to implement the following recommendation made in the Fox Report: That section 40 ( 1 ) of the Land Rights Act should be amended, so that the prohibition against granting a mining interest without consent will certainly include the common case of mining leases being approved by the administrator, but not formally granted ‘.
  2. If the Government is not going to implement this recommendation, why not.
  3. Does this mean that this Government is negating its election promises to the Aboriginal people; if not, why not.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1), (2) and (3) The Government’s decision on uranium mining in Australia was announced on Thursday, 25 August 1977. Full details were provided in the ministerial statements issued at that time.

Uranium Mining: Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 1145)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. Have the Minister, the Government, and interdepartmental committees finished their deliberations on the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report (Fox Report); if so, when is the Government likely to implement the following recommendation made in the Fox Report: That consideration be given to amending the Land Rights Act to remove problems associated with the lack of survey of land boundaries which arise when it comes to establishing a Land Trust, and giving registered title to the land.
  2. If the Government is not going to implement this recommendation, why not.
  3. Does this mean that this Government is negating its election promises to the Aboriginal people; if not, why not.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The Government’s decision on uranium mining in Australia was announced on Thursday, 25 August 1977. Full details were provided in the ministerial statements issued at that time.

Uranium Mining: Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 1146)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. Have the Minister, the Government and interdepartmental committees finished their deliberations on the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report (Fox Report); if so, when is the Government likely to implement the following recommendation made in the Fox Report: ‘That Mudginberri and Munmarlary pastoral leases be resumed, and that opportunity be given for Aboriginal land claims to be made and determined in respect of those areas.
  2. If the Government is not going to implement this recommendation, why not.
  3. Does this mean that this Government is negating its election promises to the Aboriginal people; if not, why not.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The Government’s decision on uranium mining in Australia was announced on Thursday, 25 August 1977. Full details were provided in the ministerial statements issued at that time.

Uranium Mining: Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 1147)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. Have the Minister, the Government, and interdepartmental committees finished their deliberations on the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report (Fox Report); if so, when is the Government likely to implement the following recommendation made in the Fox Report: ‘That a decision that mining should proceed at Ranger be taken in conjunction with decisions respecting Aboriginal land rights and the national park’.
  2. If the Government is not going to implement this recommendation, why not.
  3. Does this mean that this Government is negating its election promises to the Aboriginal people; if not, why not.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The Government’s decision on uranium mining in Australia was announced on Thursday, 25 August 1977. Full details were provided in the ministerial statements issued at that time.

Uranium Mining: Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 1148)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. Have the Minister, the Government, and interdepartmental committees finished their deliberations on the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report (Fox Report); if so, when is the Government likely to implement the following recommendation made in the Fox Report: ‘Once an Aboriginal Land Trust is established which includes the Ranger mining area, negotiations to take place between the Northern Land Council and Ranger respecting the terms and conditions to which section 43 (2) of the Land Rights Act refers.’
  2. If the Government is not going to implement this recommendation, why not.
  3. Does this not mean that this Government is negating its election promises to the Aboriginal people; if not, why not.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1) (2) and (3) The Government’s decision on uranium mining in Australia was announced on Thursday, 25 August 1977. Full details were provided in the ministerial statements issued at that time.

Uranium Mining: Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 1149)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. Have the Minister, the Government and interdepartmental committees finished their deliberations on the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report (Fox Report); if so, when is the Government likely to implement the following recommendation made in the Fox Report; ‘That the Land Rights Act be amended so as to move the southern boundary of the Ranger Project Area, as delineated in Schedule 2 of the Act, further away from Aboriginal sacred sites.’
  2. If the Government is not going to implement this recommendation, why not.
  3. Does this mean that this Government is negating its election promises to the Aboriginal people; if not, why not.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1) (2) and (3) The Government’s decision on uranium mining in Australia was announced on Thursday, 25 August 1977. Full details were provided in the ministerial statements issued at that time.

Uranium Mining: Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 1150)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. Have the Minister, the Government and interdepartmental committees finished their deliberations on the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report (Fox Report); if so, when is the Government likely to implement the following recommendation made by the Fox Report: ‘Legislative action to be taken to enable the Director and the Northern Land Council to enforce environment protection provisions, particularly by way of injunction to restrain or compel action, and to give the Supreme Court a wide discretion as to the exercise of its jurisdiction in such cases’.
  2. If the Government is not going to implement this recommendation, why not.
  3. Does this mean that this Government is negating its election promises to the Aboriginal people; if not, why not.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The Government’s decision on uranium mining in Australia was announced on Thursday, 25 August 1977. Full details were provided in the ministerial statements issued at that time.

Uranium Mining: Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 1151)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. Have the Minister, the Government and interdepartmental committees finished their deliberations on the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report (Fox Report); if so, when is the Government likely to implement the following recommendation made in the Fox Report: ‘Either under that Act (see section 50 (4)) or as part of a plan of management under the National Parks Act, the situation of the Aboriginal people who reside on Mudginberri to be appropriately secured ‘.
  2. If the Government is not going to implement this recommendation, why not.
  3. Does this mean that this Government is negating its election promises to the Aboriginal people; if not, why not.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The Government’s decision on uranium mining in Australia was announced on Thursday, 25 August 1977. Full details were provided in the ministerial statements issued at that time.

Uranium Mining: Health of Aborigines (Question No. 1152)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 1 7 August 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Have the Minister, the Government, and interdepartmental committees finished their deliberations on the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report (Fox Report); if so, when is the Government likely to implement the following recommendation made in the Fox Report: ‘That Aboriginal health workers be trained to work among their own communities ‘.
  2. If the Government is not going to implement this recommendation, why not.
  3. Does this not mean that this Government is negating its election promises to the Aboriginal people; if not, why not.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The Government’s decision on uranium mining in Australia was announced on Thursday, 25 August 1977. Full details were provided in the ministerial statements issued at that time.

Uranium Mining: National Parks (Question No. 1153)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development upon notice on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) When is the Government likely to implement the following recommendation from the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report (Fox Report): ‘That the guidelines developed by Justice Woodward for Aboriginal participation be applied to the planning and management of the whole of any national park, which is established in the region, even though part of it may not become Aboriginal land’.
  2. If the Government is not going to implement this recommendation, why not.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Government’s decision on uranium mining in Australia was announced on Thursday 25 August 1977. Full details were provided in the ministerial statements issued at that time.

Uranium Mining: National Parks (Question No. 1154)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development upon notice on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) When is the Government likely to implement the following recommendation from the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report (Fox Report): ‘That there be no activities associated with mining in the national park for the time being’.
  2. If the Government is not going to implement this recommendation, why not.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Government’s decision on uranium mining in Australia was announced on Thursday 25 August 1977. Full details were provided in the ministerial statements issued at that time.

Uranium Mining: National Parks (Question No. 1155)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development upon notice on 16 August 1977:

  1. When is the Government likely to implement the following recommendation from the Ranger Uranium Environ-“ mental Inquiry Second Report (Fox Report): ‘That if possible, the national park include at least one large total river catchment; the South Alligator catchment is the most suitable’.
  2. If the Government is not going to implement this recommendation, why not:
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Government’s decision on uranium mining in Australia was announced on Thursday 25 August 1977. Full details were provided in the ministerial statements issued at that time.

Uranium Mining: National Parks (Question No. 1156)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) When is the Government likely to implement the following recommendation from the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report (Fox Report): ‘That the park plan for management provide for the preservation of Aboriginal sites, and any program of preservation should provide for the participation of Aboriginal people ‘.
  2. If the Government is not going to implement this recommendation, why not.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Government’s decision on uranium mining in Australia was announced on Thursday 25 August 1977. Full details were provided in the ministerial statements issued at that time.

Uranium Mining: National Parks (Question No. 1157)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) When is the Government likely to implement the following recommendation from the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report (Fox Report): That a major national park be established in the region.
  2. Where is this park likely to be.
  3. If the Government is not going to implement this recommendation, why not.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The Government’s decision on uranium mining in Australia was announced on Thursday 25 August 1977. Full details were provided in the ministerial statements issued at that time.

Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 1182)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. Did the Queensland Premier state in a This Day Tonight interview on 16 June 1977 that the granting of Aboriginal Land Rights was apartheid.
  2. Will the Minister undertake to indicate to the Premier and all Australians that the granting of land rights is not apartheid, but a long overdue recognition of the Aborigines’ intimate relationship and ownership of land.
  3. Do the Minister and the Government agree that the Queensland Government’s refusal to allow land sales to Aboriginal organisations and communities in that State is discriminatory.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) I did not see the program referred to by the honourable senator.

I refer the honourable senator to my second reading speech on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and to statements which I have made subsequently in Parliament and to the media. In particular, I refer to my statement in a speech I made on 1 8 March 1977 entitled ‘ Aboriginals in multi-cultural Australia’. On the subject of apartheid ‘I said:

And yet, the Commonwealth, by its Land Rights Act, is accused by some of its detractors of introducing a form of apartheid to Australia, of creating ‘black states’ in the South African sense. The governments of Australia of my philosophy through their history have a long record of opposition to apartheid and have expressed this opposition both publicly and privately to the South African Government, from Menzies to Fraser.

Apartheid is the last thing we would import to Australia, for apartheid imposes political and private restraint and applies force to people who are given no choice. It segregates while it pretends to offer equal opportunity where none exists.

What we have done in recognising land rights for Aboriginals is to offer the universal freedom of personal liberty and private dignity inherent in Liberalism to Aboriginals so that they may choose their own life styles and live by their own culture and enjoy the same freedoms as all other citizens of Australia. There is no coercion, there is no force. Aboriginals are not only free, but are now supported in their efforts to pursue their own cultures and beliefs in the very place it has real meaning for them on and in relation to their traditional land.

Commonwealth Funding for Aborigines (Question No. 1264)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 6 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did Mr Neville Perkins, the Australian Labor Party candidate for MacDonnell in the recent Northern Territory Legislative Assembly elections, state on the Australian Broadcasting Commission Broadband program, on 18 August 1977, that there had been large cuts in Government spending for Aboriginal people; if so, is this correct.
  2. What is the total amount of money allocated by the Government for Aboriginal purposes in each of the last three financial years.
  3. What money was allocated by the Government for Aboriginal purposes in the Northern Territory for each of the last three financial years.
  4. What funds have been allocated by the Government to the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, of which Mr Perkins is a director, for each of the last three financial years.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Mr Perkins stated on Broadband on 18 August 1977 that:
  2. . . other issues that have affected Aboriginal people are the continual cutbacks in Aboriginal spending by the Federal Government . . . ‘.

Funds Allocated to Queensland Government (Question No. 1269)

Senator Colston:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 August 1977:

  1. What funds, if any, were allocated by the Commonwealth to the Queensland Government for matters encompassed by the Minister’s portfolio in (a) 1972-73; (b) 1973-74; (c) 1974-75; (d) 1975-76; and (e) 1976-77.
  2. What amount, if any, from (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) remained unspent by the Queensland Government at the end of each respective financial year.
  3. Were any funds remaining unspent, as listed in (2), returned to the Commonwealth, or were they carried over into the succeeding financial year.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (3 ) I refer the honourable senator to the answer provided by the Acting Treasurer to Question No. 1272 (Hansard, 1 1 October 1977, pages 1276-7).

Alcohol Problems of Aborigines (Question No. 1311)

Senator Cavanagh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 8 September 1977:

What action has been taken on all or any of the 13 recommendations contained in the interim report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs concerning Alcohol problems of Aboriginals- Northern Territory Aspects.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

The recommendations are being studied by the Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs, Health, Education and the Northern Territory.

Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service (Question No. 1321)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1977:

  1. Did the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service forward a telegram to the Prime Minister on 28 August 1977 seeking urgent funding in order to pay outstanding fees to solicitors and barristers; if so, is the Minister also aware that the telegram was ignored and that a further telegram was forwarded on 6 September 1 977.
  2. Are the outstanding accounts for the last financial year to be met by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, or will this be just one more example of the continuous cut-back in funding for Aboriginals.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Prime Minister replied to the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service on 13 September 1977.
  2. It is not proposed to provide funds to meet the Service’s outstanding accounts which have been incurred against the continued advice of the Department. Its audited statement for 1976-77 indicates $49,520 of this deficit arose from its office at Robinvale and extension of activities into New South Wales. There were also instances of other items of expenditure incurred without approval, all of which were outside the conditions of the grant approved for the Service. Also, the audited statement indicated an underexpenditure of $15,655 in the approved allocation for outside solicitors’ accounts. There has been no cutback in funding of the Service. In 1977-78 the Service has been allocated $330,000 which represents a 5 per cent increase over the 1976-77 allocation.

National Aboriginal Council Elections (Question No. 1383)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 6 October 1 977:

  1. Is the Minister aware that the reported date of 12 November 1977 has been set for the Queensland State elections and that this is also the date set aside many months ago for national elections for the National Aboriginal Council.
  2. Will the Minister take all possible steps to ensure that elections for the National Aboriginal Council in Queensland proceed as smoothly as possible or alternatively, can a new date be set for the National Aboriginal Council elections in that State in order to avoid confusion.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. On 6 October I issued a public statement advising that the National Aboriginal Conference election in Queensland will now be held on Saturday, 19 November.

Repatriation Artificial Limb and Appliance Centre, Victoria

Senator Durack:
LP

- Senator Primmer asked me the following question, without notice, on 6 October 1977:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs aware that due to staff ceilings at the Repatriation Artificial Limb and Appliance Centre in South Melbourne people requiring artificial limb fittings are being forced to wait up to two months for appointments? Will the Minister ask his colleagues to take the steps necessary to overcome this delay.

The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

It is true that patients currently have to wait up to two months for an appointment in connection with the provision of an artificial limb from the Repatriation Artificial Limb and Appliance Centre in Victoria. This waiting time has been caused by a relatively higher staff turnover resulting in inexperienced staff being employed at a time when overall workloads are still high. Staff ceiling is not a contributing factor.

The RALAC has lost a number of experienced limbmakers who have been replaced by trainees whose productivity cannot be expected to be as high as that of experienced men.

The Department is conscious of the need to keep patients mobile. To reduce the backlog of work, some overtime is being worked and assistance is being given by RALACs in other States but this is necessarily limited by their own needs. The increased demand for artificial limbs following the introduction of the Free Limbs Scheme in 1 973 has not yet subsided.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 October 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1977/19771013_senate_30_s75/>.